Back
2003(8) Supreme 67
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Gujarat High Court)
Doraiswamy Raju & Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
Chaudhari Ramjibhai Narasangbhai -Appellant
versus
State of Gujarat & Ors. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 1997
Decided on 10-11-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Sushil Kumar, Sr. Advocate, George Paulose, Adolf Mathew, Advocate for Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Advocate/Advocates.
For the Respondents : Maullick Nanavati, Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, Advocate for Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advocate/Advocates.
(ii) Evidence Act, 1872-Section 145-Witness can be contradicted by his own previous statement and not with statement of any other witness.
Held : Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the Evidence Act ) applies when same person makes two contradictory statements. It is not permissible in law to draw adverse inference because of alleged contradictions between one prosecution witness vis-a-vis statement of other witnesses. It is not open to Court to completely demolish evidence of one witness by referring to the evidence of other witnesses. Witnesses can only be contradicted in terms of Section 145 of the Evidence Act by his own previous statement and not with the statement of any other witness. (See Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1982 SC 839). As was held in the said case, Section 145 applies only to cases where the same person makes two contradictory statements either in different proceedings or in two different stages of a proceeding. If the maker of a statement is sought to be contradicted, his attention should be drawn to his previous statement under Section 145 of the Evidence Act only. Section 145 has no application where a witness is sought to be contradicted not by his own statement but by the statement of another witness. (Para 11)
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J.-Appellant questions correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court setting aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court and convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Sections 304 Part II, 325 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years, 3 years and 2 years respectively with a direction that the sentences to run concurrently. Two other persons who are respondents 2 and 3 in this appeal had also faced trial with the appellant. They were acquitted by the trial Court, but convicted by the High Court. They were, however, ordered to be released on probation of good conduct and behaviour for a period of 3 years instead of sentencing them at once.
2. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows :
The complainant Madhevbhai Veljibhai (PW-4), one of the injured witnesses filed the first information report stating that on 28.4.1983 a.m. his father Veljibhai Bhavsang (hereinafter referred to as the deceased ) along with his elder brother Cheljibhai (PW-6) and younger brother Kanjibhai (PW-7) were working on their Vadvalo agricultural field situated in the outskirts of Magroda village. At about 10.00 a.m. the complainant went on to a well to take bath. After taking bath and washing clothes, he was trying to dry his clothes. At that time his father the deceased was sweeping leaves under a Peepal tree and his brother Chelji (PW-6) was sitting near the well whereas his younger brother Kanji (PW-7) was bathing cows at the place where they were grazing. At about 11.00 a.m. his cousin brothers (uncle s son) Chaudhari Ramji Narsang (A-1) (Appellant No. 1) armed with hoe, Chaudhari Bababhai Narsang (A-2) (Respondent No. 2) armed with stick and Chaudhari Bai Suraj (A-3) (Respondent No. 3) armed with log entered the field and started assaulting his father. It was alleged that accused-appellant Chaudhari Ramji Narsang gave two blows with hoe on the head of his father as a result of which he raised some cries. As a result of injury, he was having profused bleeding. On hearing cry, his brother Chelji (PW-6) and Kanji (PW-7) ran towards the scene of offence. On seeing them, Chaudhari Bababhai Narsang (A-2) gave stick blow on the forehead of Chelji, whereas Suraj (A-3) assaulted Chelji with log. As a result of such assaults Chelji also received injuries. On seeing this, he (PW-4) also proceeded towards that place. One Velji Kuber and Chaudhari Madhevbahi Velji also appeared, but in the meanwhile all the accused had run away. As his father Velji and brother Chelji were injured, both were taken to village in bullock cart and from there they were removed in a tractor for treatment to Visnagar Hospital. In FIR it was also stated about the motive of this incident. It was stated that on account of partition of agricultural properties belonging to his aunt Sakiben, one field had come to the share of his father and, therefore, the accused nurtured grudge and enmity against them and with a view to do away with life of his father and brothers, all the three accused armed with weapons had entered the field and attacked and caused injuries. It was further stated that owing to the attack by accused, his father Velji had become unconscious and was unconscious till the time FIR was lodged. Injured Veljibhai who was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad died on 8.5.1983 due to the injuries sustained by him and therefore, the charge under Section 302 was added, though initially Section 307 was indicated. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed . Prosecution s version mainly rested on the evidence of eyewitnesses. Accused persons pleaded innocence and false implication. It is to be noted that additionally the defence version was to the effect that the incident did not take place in the agricultural field as stated by the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution w
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
