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

2004 Supreme(SC) 982

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.G.Balakrishnan : A.R.Lakshmanan
Yakub Ismailbhai Patel
Versus
State Of Gujarat
Case No. : 62 of 2004
Date of Decision : 8/31/04
Advocates Appeared: Huzefa Ahmadi : Nakul Dewan : Ejaz Maqbool : Madhukar : Sadhana Sandhu : Hemantika Wahi

Headnote:

A. Indian Penal Code, Section 302 - Conviction on the basis of sole witness -Appellant convicted along with two other co-accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC- Conviction confirmed by High Court- Contention that evidence sole witness PW2 was not reliable, not accepted-. The testimony of PW-2, was wholly believable and worthy of inspiring confidence-That witness had stuck to his police statement and the subsequent examination-in-chief in Court where he identified the appellant-accused as well as the co-accused as the assailants of the deceased Therefore conviction upheld -paras 36 to 38

B. Indian Evidence Act 1872, Section3- Resiling from the statement - Statement on oath by P.W.1supporting the prosecution- Later on he filed an affidavit, stating that, whatever he had deposed before Court as PW-1 was not true and it was so done at the instance of Police- Once the witness is examined as a prosecution witness, he cannot be allowed to perjure himself by resiling from the testimony given in Court on oath. [Paras 40 and 41]

C. Indian Penal Code, Section 302 - Hostile witness -Two of the witnesses to the prosecution case present at the spot turned hostile- Held it cannot be said that the prosecution must suffer adverse inference - It was not the case of the appellant that there were certain witnesses who were cited as witness in the charge- sheet but were later on dropped as witnesses by the prosecution during the trial. It was also pointed out to us and is pertinent to mention that one of the witnesses before the trial Court had been granted police protection by the trial Court on the ground of threats from the accused persons Prosecution case could not be doubted on that ground -paras 47 and 48

A.R. Lakshmanan, J.

The present criminal appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 29.8.2003 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 327 of 1998 wherein the High Court confirmed the conviction of the Appellant along with two other co-accused for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to imprisonment for life.

2. The brief facts of the present case are as under:

On 25.8.1995 at about 13.15 hrs. the Ahmedabad Railway Police received Vardhi from one Abdulmajid and that a knife blow has been inflicted on Nazim at Kankaria Loco Shed. On the strength of the said entry, Police Sub-Inspector went to the scene of occurrence, prepared inquest report of dead body and also drew panchnama of scene of occurrence. In the meantime, at about 17.40 hrs. complaint was given by Munna @ Gheti Mohamadshafi Shaikh. In the said complaint, it is stated that he happens to be a friend of Nizamuddin Islamilbhai (deceased) for the last 15 years and the said Nizamuddin has been allotted one quarter in B scale colony of Kankaria railway colony, but he was not residing there. He gave the quarter to his relative. Nearby the quarter of Nizamuddin, Yakubbhai Patel (accused No.1) was residing. The Complainant also used to visit the said quarter along with Nizamuddin. On 24.8.1995, there was altercation and quarrel in between accused No.1 and deceased in respect to the said quarter, as he wanted to get it evicted. On 25.8.1995, the day of the incident, while the said Munna @ Gheti was returning from the house of his friend, somewhere near Kankaria railway colony, he saw accused no. 1 and accused No.2 along with other person. They were running. There was Jamaiya (kukari) in the hands of accused Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, he went towards the fuel room of diesel shed, where he saw the dead body of Nizamuddin in a pool of blood lying near the railway track. One Raju was also there. In the inquiry, he could gather from the said Raju that accused No.1 and 2 along with one another person had inflicted injuries on the person Nizamuddin and thus has resulted into death. The said Munna had also seen the injury on the throat and on the face of Nizamuddin.

3. During investigation, police recorded the statements of witnesses, panchanamas were drawn in respect of the clothes of the deceased, discovery of weapons at the instance of the accused persons and post mortem note of the deceased was collected. Incriminating articles were also collected for having scientific examination. Police arrested accused Nos. 1 and 2 and Tapan @ Tondi Shashdhar accused No.3 on 19.09.1995. After completion of investigation, accused came to be charge-sheeted on 16.12.1995 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 5, Ahmedabad. The said charge-sheet was for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302 and 304 of the I.P.C. and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. It was numbered as Criminal Case No. 2833 of 1995. The Metropolitan Magistrate, in turn, committed the said Criminal Case No. 2833 of 1995 of his file to the Court of Sessions Ahmedabad on 1.2.1996 and it was numbered as Sessions Case No. 101 of 1996. Charge was framed against all the three accused. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution, in order to prove the charge against the accused, examined 14 witnesses and also relied on documentary evidence which consisted of FIR, Panchanama of place of incident, recovery of weapons panchanama from the present appellants. The appellants have also examined D.W. 1 Munna @ Gheti Mohammadsami Shaikh and produced documentary evidence.

5. After the prosecution case was over, the appellants were questioned with regard to the evidence led by the prosecution against them and their statements were recorded under Section 313 of the Code. In their further statements, all the appellants have denied the alleged part played by them in the commission of the offence. However, they gave app




























































































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