SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1971 Supreme(SC) 632

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY AND D.G. PALEKAR, JJ.
Damodar Prasad Chandrika Prasad and others, Appellants
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 1968, D/- 29-11-1971.
Advocates appeared
Mr. V. S. Desai, Sr. Advocate (M/s. P. S. Nadkarni and Vineet Kumar, Advocates with him), for Appellants; M/s. S. K. Dholakia and B. D. Sharma Advocates, for Respondent.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code ,1860 – Sections 34,323,326,325,143,147,307,149 - Evidence Act 1872 – Sections 8,32(1)157 - Appeal Against Conviction - Attempt to murder - Punishment for rioting - Complainant and are brothers - They resided in room No of along with their cousin brother-in-law were employed at Premier Automobiles at - Prosecution witness who resided was also employed at Premier Automobiles - Another procecution witness Dinanath was a shopkeeper residing at Halav Pool Kurla - First appellant dealt in milk and resided at Maulana Chawl Halav Pool Kurla - Appellant is brother of appellant and resided at a nearby Pool and was employed at Premier Automobiles at - Appellant also resided was employed at Premier Automobiles - Appellant resided another and was also employed at Premier Automobiles - Accused worked as a of one and resided at Bhagwat Bhuvan Halav Pool Kurla - Whether High Court was justified in convicting appellants on evidence and grounds mentioned in Judgment - Whether High Court had infringed principles laid down in 3 SCR 120 or whether appeal was an exceptional one within ruling of this Court in State of Bombay AIR 1960 SC 391 where finding was such that it shocks conscience of Court or that it disregarded forms of legal process or substantial and grave injustice had been done - Held, High Court arrived at these conclusions - Evidence established that grievous injury inflicted on the simple injury inflicted on were inflicted by appellants - Trouble arose on account of dispute over open space adjoining room - Appellants could not be convicted under section 307 of Indian Penal Code - High Court did not deal with finding of first appellate Court that it was unsafe to place reliance on evidence of four prosecution witnesses who were interested witnesses - Another feature which vitiated approach of the High Court in that case was that there was a delay of days in filing complaint and first appellate Court said that it threw a great deal of doubt on prosecution story - High Court made reference to some information laid before Police and did not properly assess delay in filing of complaint - This Court to which reference has been made we are satisfied that High Court kept in view rules and principles of appreciation of evidence and right of accused to benefit of doubt and High Court gave reasons as to why occurrence on morning was proved and also why appellants were found on evidence on record to be guilty of having committed an offence - Benefit of doubt was no sustainable in present case inasmuch as materials on record did not exclude guilt of appellants - Trial Court was unreasonable that itself would provided a reason for interference - Again if it was found that High Court applied correct principles in setting aside order of acquittal this Court would not ordinarily interfere with order of conviction passed by High Court in an appeal against acquittal or review entire evidence where High Court was right in its view of evidence - Appeal dismissed

Judgment

RAY, J. :- This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 10 June, 1968 of the High Court at Bombay setting aside the order of acquittal of the appellants and convicting them under section 325 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for having assaulted and injured Choharjasing and sentencing each of the appellants to four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ each and six months rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine and further convicting the appellants under section 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for having assaulted and injured Ramkeshwarsing and sentencing each of the appellants to three months rigorous imprisonment. The sentences were to run concurrently.

2. The appellants and another accused were charged under sections 143, 147, 307 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The four appellants were also charged under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. In the alternative the appellants were charged under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants and the other accused were further charged under section 326 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. In the alternative they were charged under section 324 (326?) read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants and the other accused were further charged under section 324 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. In the alternative they were charged under S. 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The complainant Choharjasing and Nandlal are brothers. They resided in room No. 5 of Vidya Bhuvan Kurla along with their cousin Ramkeshwarsing and Gayitrising brother-in-law of Choharjasing. Choharjasing, Nandlal and Ramkeshwarsing were employed at Premier Automobiles at Kurla. The prosecution witness Awadh Narayan who resided at Moturam Chawl was also employed at Premier Automobiles. Another procecution witness Dinanath was a shopkeeper residing at Halav Pool, Kurla. The first appellant dealt in milk and resided at Maulana Chawl, Halav Pool, Kurla. Appellant No. 2 is the brother of appellant No. 1 and resided at a nearby Chawl at Halav Pool and was employed at Premier Automobiles at Kurla. Appellant No. 3 also resided at Halav Pool Chawl, Kurla and was employed at Premier Automobiles, Kurla. Appellant No. 4 resided at another Chawl at Kurla and was also employed at Premier Automobiles, Kurla. Accused No. 5 worked as a Mehtaji of one Jairaj Pandye and resided at Bhagwat Bhuvan, Halav Pool, Kurla.

4. The prosecution case was this. The relation between Choharjasing and his brother Nandlal on the one hand and appellants Nos. 1 and 2 on the other were strained for some time. On the morning of 15 October 1964 Nandlal brought a truck load of earth and spread the same in front of their room. On that account there was some altercation between him and appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 3. On the morning of 16 October, 1964 Choharjasing left his room and went to Podar hospital at Worli for undergoing an operation for fistula. He returned to his room at about 11 or 12 noon. On his return he was told by his brother Nandlal about the quarrel and that the appellants and another accused had given a threat and enquired as to where Chohariasing was. Nandlal further told Choharjasing that the appellants and the other accused had threatened that they would break Choharjasing s hands and feet. Choharjasing went to the Police Station and filed a non-cognizable complaint. The police directed Choharjasing to approach the proper criminal court. Choharjasing went to prosecution witness Dinanath and told him about the threats.

5. Choharjasing then returned to his room and lunched with his brother Nandlal, cousin Ramkeshwarsing and brother-in-law Gaitrising. Choharjasing was not feeling comfortable after the operation. He sat on a charpoy (cot) outside his room. Nandlal was with Choharjasing. Ramkeshwarsing was inside the room. At about 5 or 5.30 p. m. the appellants came the































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top