IMPORTANT POINT
High Court has not committed any error in upholding conviction of the appellants and sentences awarded to them. It does not require remand to High Court as demanded by appellants. On the contrary, no interference is called for by Apex Court.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302/34 and 326/34-Offences under-While the members of prosecution party were holding meeting, the accused persons 13 in number armed with deadly weapons arrived there and assaulted them causing death of one Laxman Debnath and injuring several others-Some of the accused also received injuries-Sessions Judge convicted all, upheld by High Court-Appeal against to Supreme Court-Whether case be remanded? (No)-Individual cases of accused not considered, not fatal-Apex Court considered it (See Paras 7 & 8)-Injuries of accused persons does not affect prosecution case-Whether offence comes under any of exceptions to Section 302 IPC? (No)-Appeal dismissed.
       Held : It appears to us that the High Court has taken into consideration vital points raised in the case and material evidence adduced by the parties. Minor discrepancies pointed out in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses did not rightly weigh with the High Court as in its opinion the prosecution witnesses had supported the prosecution case in material particulars. Even though we are not inclined to accept the submission put forth by learned counsel on behalf of the appellants, we feel that the High Court has not considered individual cases of the accused persons, which we propose to ourselves consider instead of remitting the appeal.(Para 6)
       Held also : It is well settled that merely because the prosecution has failed to explain injuries on the accused persons, ipso facto the same cannot be taken to be a ground for throwing out the prosecution case, especially when the same has been supported by eyewitnesses, including injured ones as well, and their evidence is corroborated by medical evidence as well as objective finding of the Investigating Officer. (Para 9)
       Held further : In view of the fact that this witness has made vague statements and she has been declared hostile, veracity of statements of other ten eyewitnesses, including injured ones, to the effect that while the members of the prosecution party were holding meeting, the accused persons armed with deadly weapons arrived there and assaulted them, cannot be doubted. When asked, if the accused persons were invited to the meeting and they were attending the same from before, as to what was the reason for their being armed with deadly weapons, Shri Misra had no answer to offer, except saying that in that part of the country which is hilly area, people generally carry arms with them for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Thus, we do not find any substance in his submission which is accordingly rejected. (Para 10)
       Held finally : In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the High Court has not committed any error in upholding convictions of the appellants and sentences awarded to them, as such no interference is called for by this Court. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT

B.N. Agrawal, J.-Appellants were convicted by the trial court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They were further convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and each one of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. The sentences, however, were ordered to run concurrently. On appeal being preferred by the appellants, their convictions and sentences have been upheld by the High Court.

2. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 5.9.1990 at 9 P.M. a meeting in the locality was held in the house of one Subhash Chandra Das (PW.4) to discuss the organisational matters in respect of ensuing Durga Puja which the members wanted to celebrate under the auspices of Kiran Sangha Club, its Secretary being one Narayan Debnath (PW.18). At the place of meeting, all of a sudden, thirteen accused persons came armed with daos (chopper), lathis, ballams, etc. and started assaulting Laxman Debnath, Baghla Charan Das (PW.9) Santosh Das (PW.12), Rajani Debnath (PW.16) and Narayan Debnath (PW.16) on their heads and other parts of body as a result of which Laxman Debnath subsequently succumbed to the injuries. When the accused persons were going out from the house, they assaulted other persons as well. Stating the aforesaid facts, on the basis of the written report submitted by PW.4, the First Information Report was drawn up at the police station on the same day at 10.45 p.m. in which names of all the accused persons were mentioned.

3. The police after registering the case took up investigation and on completion thereof submitted charge sheet on receipt whereof, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and committed all the 13 accused to the Court of Sessions to face trial.

4. Defence of the accused persons was that they were innocent. They, however, have not denied their presence at the alleged place and time of occurrence. According to them, they were also invited to the meeting in which they were present during the course of which some altercation ensued between the two groups - one led by the deceased-Laxman Debnath and another by the accused persons. The prosecution party, according to the defence, was the aggressor and some of the accused persons were assaulted by them and they had received injuries. One of the accused - Shanker Debnath had taken a plea of alibi as, according to him, he was undergoing orientation programme course in Sericulture Training Institute at Santir Bazar.

5. During trial, the prosecution examined 24 witnesses in all out of whom 11 persons claimed to be the eyewitnesses, namely, PWs. 4 to 12,16 and 18. From amongst these witnesses, PW.4 is nobody else than the informant himself, whereas PWs. 5, 9, 12, 16 and 18 claimed to have received injuries during the course of the occurrence. PWs. 1 and 17 are witnesses who have corroborated the statements of the eyewitnesses. PWs. 2, 3, 13, 14 and 15 are formal witnesses. PW 19 is Doctor who examined the injuries of the injured prosecution witnesses as well as some of the accused persons. PW. 21 is also a Doctor who held postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. PW.23 is a Police Officer who drew up formal First Information Report whereas PWs. 20 and 24 are the two Investigating Officers. Upon the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted all the accused persons, as stated above, and their convictions and sentences have been upheld by the High Court. Hence this appeal by special leave.

6. Shri P.N. Misra, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the appeal, at the outset, submitted that the High Court has not considered the regular appeal preferred by the appellants in the manner postulated under law which amounts to negation of their right of appeal, therefore, the appeal should be remitted to it for considering the same afresh in accordance with law. We have been taken through the impugned judgment of the H

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 842

IMPORTANT POINTHigh Court has not committed any error in upholding conviction of the appellants and sentences awarded to them. It does not require remand to High Court as demanded by appellants. On the contrary, no interference is called for by Apex Court.

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court has not committed any error in upholding conviction of the appellants and sentences awarded to them. It does not require remand to High Court as demanded by appellants. On the contrary, no interference is called for by Apex Court.