1993 Supreme(SC) 1040

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. RAMASWAMY AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.
State of Haryana, Appellant
Versus
Manoj Kumar, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 698 of 1993 (arising out of S. L. P. (Cri.) No. 293 of 1993) With Spl. Leave Petn. (Cri.) No. 322 of 1993, D/- 2-11-1993.
WITH
Col. A. S. Saharan, Petitioner
Versus
Manoj Kumar and another, Respondent.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 Acquittal for offence under - Appeal- Sole eyewitness being brother of the deceased - His presence at the time of occurrence and his going along with the deceased on motorcycle not doubted - He has given every detail of the incident as to how the accused made repeated attempts to crush them on the road because of the altercation - Medical evidence consistent with the case of prosecution - Evidence of eyewitness fully corroborated - Delay in lodging First Information Report explained - Evidence disclosing that accused intentionally caused such bodily injuries, as he knew to be likely to cause the death of the deceased - Conviction u/s. 302 sustainable - Sentence of life imprisonment.

       Held: Rohan (P.W. 14) has stated in detail about the altercation al Bahadurgarh and about the first attack on the way in which the car of the accused is alleged to have hit the left leg of Chetan and caused injuries, and as to how ultimately the accused knocked down Chetan on road by his car with great force. He also seized that after hitting Chetan by the right side bonnet of the car, accused proceeded ahead grazing with the tractor and trolley. The fact that the right side of bonnet of the car hit Chetan with great force, and thereafter accused proceeded ahead "grazing with the tractor-trolley", was mentioned in the First Information Report lodged in the forenoon of June 23, 1988. The car of the accused was seized on June 25, 1988. The right side of the car was found to have been badly damaged. This was mainly due to the car grazing with the trolley. If Rohan (P.W. 14) was not with Chetan (deceased), how this fact that the car grazed the trolley after hitting Chetan, could have been mentioned in the First Information Report lodged on June 23, 1988, before the car was seized. From a bare reading of the evidence of Rohan (P.W. 14) it shall appear that he has deposed in a very straight forward manner, giving every detail of the incident and as to how the accused respondent made repeated attempts to crush them on the road, because of he altercation at Bahadurgarh. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination. No part of the evidence of Rohan (P.W. 14) has been demolished. The High Court has simply quoted the evidence of Rohan (P.W. 14) but has given no reason why it should be rejected. The High Court has observed only "that the evidence of the eye-witness in the court was a belated attempt to improve their testimony and bring the same in line with the Doctors evidence with a view to support an incorrect case." (Para 8)

       Further held: The High Court doubted the presence of Rohan (P.W. 14) with the victim, merely on the ground that Rohan did not reach the hospital along with the victim. Since very beginning, the case of the prosecution is that Rohan (P.W. 14) got a matador stopped on the way and asked the driver of the matador to take his brother" to hospital. Rohan followed the said matador, on motorcycle. The distance between the place of occurrence and the hospital is about 35 kms. In normal course the matador must have reached before Rohan reached the hospital on motorcycle. Similarly, the adverse inference drawn by the High Court, as to why Rohan (P.W. - 14) did not inform the police regarding the occurrence throughout the night, according to us, is without justification. A young boy of 19 years, who escaped death even after several attempts on the road and ultimately found his brother becoming victim of the said attack, must have been completely broken. It was too much to expect from him that before his father arrived, he would have taken legal steps for prosecuting the respondent. (para 9)

       P.W. 13, father of the victim, who is a military officer, has stated on oath, that he got the information from Rohtak at about 2.00 or 2.15 in the night and he immediately proceeded for State of Haryana v. Manoj Kumar Rohtak and reached thereat about 4.00 or 4.15 in the morning. He found Rohan (P.W. 14) in his house at Rohtak, but he was "besudh" (not in his senses) and was lying on a "Charpai". At about 9.00 A.M. in the morning he tried to know the full details from his son Rohan and then he lodged the First Information Report on the basis of the facts narrated by his son Rohan. We find hardly any reason to doubt the evidence of the informant (P.W.13). (Para 10)

       Consequently held: The accused after leaving Bahadurgarh made repeated attempts to knock down the two brothers by his car and ultimately he succeeded in doing so, when Chetan was standing on the road. The impact was so serious that Chetan was thrown from road to the trolley. It is fully established that accused intentionally caused such bodily injuries, as the accused knew to be likely to cause the death of Chetan. As such he committed the offence of murder within the meaning of Section 300, liable to be punished for an offence under section 302 of the Penal Code. (Para 11)

       (ii) Evidence - Sole- eye witness - Fatal knock down - Conviction can be based on the testimony of a sole witness, if the court is fully satisfied that such witness is a truthful witness; (Para 10)