1. Appeal against convictions for attempt to murder and preparation for dacoity under Sections 307 and 399 of the Indian Penal Code. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 637
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.P.Mohapatra : K.T.Thomas
Chandrasekhar Suresh Chandra Bhatt
Versus
State Of Maharashtra
Case No. : 159 of 2000
Date of Decision : 3/29/00
Marginal variations between a witness's Section 161 CrPC statement and court testimony are considered elaborations, not sinister improvements. Intent for attempted murder under Section 307 IPC can be inferred from the use of lethal weapons and the situs of the wounds.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 307 and 399 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 161 - Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act - Section 19 - Attempt to commit murder and preparation for dacoity - Marginal variations between the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the testimony given in court cannot be dubbed as improvements made with sinister motive if they are elaborations elicited by the public prosecutor during examination-in-chief. (Para 6)
(B) Indian Penal Code - Section 307 - Intention to kill can be inferred from the use of a lethal weapon and the situs of the wounds. (Para 8)
(C) Indian Penal Code - Section 399 - Overheard dialogue between accused persons regarding the sequence of looting and abduction serves as evidence of preparation to commit dacoity. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
A gang planned to loot the residence of an industrialist and kidnap him for ransom. Acting on intelligence, the police set a trap, including an officer disguised as a tea peddler. When the gang arrived, the decoy officer signaled the raiding party, who overpowered the gang. During the operation, one appellant fired a pistol at a police officer, who survived because he was wearing a bullet-proof vest. A pistol and a revolver were recovered from the appellants, and a bullet was recovered from the officer's vestment.
Findings of Court:
The court found the testimony of the decoy officer to be reliable, as it was corroborated by the recovery of weapons and the bullet from the officer's vest. The court rejected the defense's argument that the witness's testimony contained sinister improvements and held that the non-examination of another employee of the victim was not fatal to the prosecution's case as no ulterior motive was established.
Issues: Whether marginal variations in the witness's statement under Section 161 CrPC rendered the testimony unreliable, and whether the evidence established the intent to kill and the preparation to commit dacoity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that elaborations in court testimony compared to Section 161 statements are permissible and not necessarily sinister. The use of lethal weapons and the location of the wound established the intent for attempted murder under Section 307 IPC, and the overheard plan to loot and abduct established preparation for dacoity under Section 399 IPC.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Act Referred
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - The court upheld the conviction under Section 307 IPC for the first appellant and Section 399 IPC for all appellants, based on Public Witness 2’s testimony and corroborating circumstances (!) . - The first appellant fired at Inspector Naik, leading to a conviction under Section 307 IPC; the court found the intent to kill not necessary given the use of a lethal weapon and wound location (!) . - The recovery of a pistol and a revolver from the appellants served as corroborative evidence strengthening Public Witness 2’s account (!) (!) . - The bullet embedded in Inspector Naik’s vestment and its extraction at the police station were described as a clinching circumstance supporting the prosecution’s version (!) (!) . - The defense argument about improvements in Public Witness 2’s testimony was rejected; variations between FIR and court testimony did not indicate sinister motive, and the witness remained basically consistent (!) . - The testimony of Public Witness 4 (chowkidar) and other corroborative witnesses supported the prosecution’s case, though their credibility was weighed with defense arguments (!) (!) . - The dialogue at the site between appellants was considered sufficiently established to indicate preparation for dacoity and kidnapping; the court did not find it improbably artificial (!) (!) . - The designated court’s approach to try the case under TADA was acknowledged, with ultimate findings on the offences under IPC (307 and 399) and the sentence maintained (!) (!) .
What is the legality of convicting the appellants under Section 399 IPC based on the evidence presented?
What is the Court’s stance on the first appellant’s conviction under Section 307 IPC in relation to the testimony of Public Witness 2?
What are the appellate court’s findings regarding the evidentiary value of the recovered weapons and the recovered bullet from Inspector Naik in sustaining the convictions?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenges to witness credibility regarding statement improvements, lack of evidence for preparation for dacoity, and absence of intent to kill. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 )
3. Witness variations are permissible elaborations; recovery of weapons and overheard dialogue substantiate the prosecution's case; lethal weapon use indicates intent to kill. (Para 6 , 7 , 10 )
4. Marginal variations between Section 161 CrPC statements and court testimony are permissible elaborations if the core version remains consistent with the FIR. (Para 6 )
5. Appeal dismissed and sentences maintained. (Para 12 )
6. Do marginal variations between a witness's statement under Section 161 CrPC and court testimony necessarily invalidate the evidence?
No. Marginal variations are considered elaborations elicited by the prosecutor during examination-in-chief and are not viewed as sinister improvements if the witness's basic position remains consistent with the FIR. (Para 6 )
7. How is the intention to kill determined in cases of attempt to murder involving firearms?
The court considers the use of a lethal weapon and the situs of the wounds to determine whether there was an intention to kill rather than merely to injure. (Para 8 )
8. Can overheard dialogue between accused persons be used to establish preparation for dacoity?
Yes, dialogue regarding the sequence of the planned operation, such as looting and abduction, can be relied upon to prove preparation for dacoity. (Para 10 )
9. Does the non-examination of a potential witness automatically weaken the prosecution's case?
No, unless the defense can establish that the non-examination was driven by an ulterior motive. The court focuses on weighing the evidence of witnesses who were actually examined. (Para 7 )
(1) THIS is an appeal under Section 19 of Terrorists and Disruptive Activities Act (in short TADA). Four persons were convicted by a designated court, first among them was of the offences under Sections 307 and 399 of the Indian Penal Code. The remaining appellants were convicted under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code alone. The first appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for ten years on the first count and all the appellants were given the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years in respect of the latter count. As a charge framed against thorn included offence under TADA it was tried before the designated court as per the provisions of TADA.
(2) THE case of the prosecution was this: A gang of dacoits including the appellants determined to make a strike during the night of 1.5.1995 on the residence of an industrialist by name, Govind Damodar Kelkar (he is said to be one of the proprietors of an industry by name, S.H. Kelkar and Company), to loot the residents and to kidnap him to keep him for ransom for knocking off a huge sum of Rs. 20.00 crores. The police had sleuth information regarding the planned operation and, therefore, they formed a raiding party for outwitting the dacoity attempt. One of the police party was sent in the guise of a tea peddler and the remaining police party took different places in anticipation of the arrival of the dacoits. The police party was headed by Inspector Naik (before he could be examined in court he died in a motor accident). After midnight the dacoits came in two motor cars and reached the particular spot. The dacoits alighted from both the cars and then Public witness . 2 -Sub-inspector who was in the guise of a tea-peddler went towards them offering tea. They declined the offer for supply of tea. But Public witness .2 passed the pre-determined signal to the other police officers who immediately emerged from concealment and over-powered the d?"oits in the said operation. First appellant, Chander Shekhar Bhatt fired his pistol at the chest of Inspector Naik. But he escaped as he was then wearing a bullet in the vestment, but did not go further forward. All the dacoits were caught except one Shekhar @ Anna Sonnappa Hegade who escaped from being caught.
(3) A pistol was recovered from first appellant and a revolver was recovered from second appellant for which a panchnama was prepared. The bullet embedded in the vestment worn by Inspector Naik was taken out at the police station for which also a panchnama was prepared.
(4) THE evidence consists of the testimony of Public witness 2 the Sub-inspector of police who went in the guise of a tea peddler. Public witness 4, a chowkidar attached to Kelkar Industries and Public witness 15, Atma Ram, who was also present at the time of the operation though he had conducted part of the investigation also.
(5) AS the most important evidence was that of Public witness 2, Sub-inspector on whose information the FIR was registered at 1.45 a.m. on the same night, we went into his evidence threadbare. We perused the other evidence also. Public witness 2 had given full narration of the event. If his testimony is believed it admits of no doubt that the conviction passed by the designated court should be upheld.
(6) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants contended that Public witness 2 cannot be believed for so many reasons, main among which is that he made improvements on his version to suit the prosecution case. He stated instances of such improvements. We have applied our mind and noticed that though there was some marginal variations on certain aspects as between his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the testimony given in court, such variations cannot be dubbed as improvements made with any sinister motive. They are elaborations elicited by the public prosecutor during examination-in-chief. It is the prerogative of the public prosecutor to elicit such points from a witness as
