Back
2002 Supreme(SC) 369
2002(5) Supreme 423
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.P. Sethi & K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.
Kalpesh Kumar @ Bhajiyu Gunvantlal Soni -Appellant
versus
State of Gujarat -Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 1139 of 2001
Decided on 19-3-2002
IMPORTANT POINT
Mere some improvements and omissions cannot be held to be contradictions so as to reject evidence of witness.
Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Appellant with six others were charge-sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 328 IPC and under Section 384 of TADA Act-Trial Court convicted appellant and acquitted other six-Appeal-Contention that statement of eye witnesses suffered from inherent contradictions-A Group of 50-60 boys led by appellant carrying weapons came into the school in an agitation for anti reservation-Appellant armed with knife inflicted blow on chest of deceased-Mere some improvements and omissions could not be held to be contradictions-Omissions and improvements pointed out were of very minor nature and did not affect merits-Conviction could not be interfered. (Para 5)
(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-In an agitation for anti-reservation, appellant leading a group of 50-60 boys entered into a school and inflicted knife stab injury on chest of deceased boy-Contention that offence could be considered covered by explanation 4 of Section 300 IPC-Intention of accused was apparent from facts and circumstances, nature of injuries inflicted and location of body where injury was caused-Doctor opined injury sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death-Conviction under Section 302 IPC called for no interference. (Para 6)
ORDER
The appellant and six others were chargesheeted for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 328 of Indian Penal Code sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. After the completion of the trial, six out of the seven accused were acquitted and only the appellant convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment vide judgment impugned in this appeal.
2. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that prosecution had not proved the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the statements of the prosecution witnesses cannot be believed as they allegedly suffer from inherent contradictions. It is contended in the alternative that even if the occurrence is proved to have taken place, the appellant cannot be convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as he was not proved to have the requisite intention to commit the offence of murder.
3. The prosecution case is that in 1990 an agitation for anti-reservation was carried on at Kapadwanj and Nadiad in district of Gujarat State. Sirajbhai Siddikbhai who was student of M.P. High School studying in 10th class had gone to the school. On account of the agitation some classes were disrupted and closed. When the complainant was in his class a group of 50-60 boys led by the appellant carrying weapons, came there. The appellant was armed with a knife in his hand. The mob was raising the slogans against the anti-reservation and compelling the students to leave the classes. When the complainant refused to join them, the appellant and his associates were annoyed. After some time Mohammed Mushabhai and Iliyasbhai relatives of the complainant came in rickshaw to call him. The complainant went to the room of the headmaster and requested him to give protection but no protection was provided. The complainant proceeded towards the gate but was prevented by the mob led by the appellant. Mohammed Mushabhai and Iliyasbhai who came to his rescue was caught by the two accused persons. The appellant gave knife blow on the left side of the chest of the Iliyasbhai who fell down and ultimately succumbed to his injuries inflicted on his person.
4. The trial court, on appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution had not succeeded in establishing the common object of the unlawful assembly comprising of the seven accused who were chargesheeted for the commission of the offences under the Indian Penal Code, the TADA Act, and Bombay Police Act. However, relying upon the testimony of three eye witnesses, PW2 Sirajbhai, PW3, Mohammed Mushabhai and PW 4, Firojbhai, trial court found that the appellant had inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased with the intention to cause his death. The injuries found on the left side of the chest of the deceased were certified by the doctor to be sufficient in the ordinary course of the nature to cause death.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us through the statements of the three eyewitnesses and argued that as there allegedly existed contradictions in their testimonies, no reliance can be placed upon them. We could not found any contradictions in the statement of the aforesaid three eyewitnesses. Mere some improvements and omissions cannot be held to be the contradictions. The omissions and improvements pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are of very minor nature and do not affect the merits of the case in any manner. On the basis of their testimony, it is established by the prosecution that on the date and at the time of occurrence, appellant was armed with a knife with which he inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased in consequence of which Iliyasbhai died. It is established from the medical evidence that the injuries sustained were sufficient in the ordinary course of the nature to cause the death of
