Back
2003 Supreme(SC) 980
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.G.Balakrishnan : B.N.Srikrishna
Karan Singh And Another
Versus
State Of M.P.
Case No. : 271 of 2003
Date of Decision : 9/26/03
Advocates Appeared: Sushil Kumar : Sushil Kumar : Adolf Mathew : Harshvardhan Jha : Hari Shankar K. : R.P.Gupta : Kamakshi S.Mehlwal : Binod Kumar Jha
The court emphasized the importance of considering the evidence of injuries and the credibility of the parties' claims in cases involving self-defense and affirmed the principle that the burden of proof lies with the accused to establish their defense.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Conviction and Sentence - Sections 148, 307 - The court discussed the prosecution's case, the appellants' defense of self-defense, and the evidence of injuries sustained by the appellants. The court found the appellants guilty of causing grievous injuries to the victim and affirmed their conviction and sentence under Sections 148 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants challenged their conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 307 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that the appellants attacked the victim, causing serious injuries. The appellants contended that they acted in self-defense and were falsely implicated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellants guilty of causing grievous injuries to the victim and affirmed their conviction and sentence under Sections 148 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: The issues involved the credibility of the prosecution's case, the appellants' defense of self-defense, and the evidence of injuries sustained by the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of injuries sustained by the victim and the appellants, the location of the incident, and the lack of evidence supporting the appellants' claim of self-defense.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants' conviction and sentence under Sections 148 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code were affirmed.
JUDGMENT
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.
Appellants challenge their conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 307 of Indian Penal Code. Appellant Karan Singh was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 148 and 307 IPC without the aid of Section 149 whereas the other appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 148 and 307 read with Section 149. The prosecution case was that these appellants were on inimical terms with PW-1 Hari Singh, and that on 29.11.1981 at about 10 A.M., when Hari Singh was returning from his well to his house, the appellants attacked him and caused injuries. Appellant Karan Singh was armed with a Pharsa whereas the other appellants were armed with Lathis. PW-1 Hari Singh suffered serious injuries and his left hand was cut off from the body just above the wrist joint. He suffered three other incised injuries and three lacerated wounds. Altogether, Hari Singh had 12 injuries on his body when he was examined by PW-12 and PW-13. PWs 2, 3 and 4 were examined as eye witnesses. Though PW-2 and PW-3 fully supported the prosecution version, PW-4 did not support the prosecution case. The Sessions Judge found that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the case against the appellants and his findings were affirmed by the High Court. Appellants Karan Singh and Banab Singh on being questioned under Section 313 Code of the Criminal Procedure, stated that they were attacked by PW-2 and PW-3 and contended that whatever they had done was done by way of self-defence. The other appellants stated that they were falsely implicated in the case. The Sessions court as well as the High Court found that the plea of alibi raised by these appellants was not true and held that there was no attack initiated from the side of PW-1 to PW-3.
2. Shri Sushil Kumar, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the place of incident is very near to the house of the appellants and PW-1 to PW-3 had come to the place of incident fully armed and attacked Karan Singh and Banab Singh and that the other appellants were falsely implicated in the case. In order to substantiate this contention, the counsel drew our attention to Exh. D-4, which is the statement of PW-1 Hari Singh, recorded by the Dr. Jain, who had first examined him. The Exh. D-4 is to the following effect :
"How this incident happened : I had gone to the Well. Was coming back. On the way by catching me Girdhari Singh and his sons, by dragging me took to the room. There beat me with Farsi, Luhogi, brought me outside by dragging".
It is true that PW-12 while giving evidence admitted that he had recorded the aforesaid Exh. D-4 statement of PW-1.
3. Relying on the above statement, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the incident happened inside the house of the appellants when PW-1 and others came there to attack the appellants. The counsel for the appellants also contended that in Exh. D-4 statement, injured had stated only about Girdhari Singh and his sons and did not name all the appellants and this indicated that the two sons of Girdhari Singh were being falsely implicated.
4. A similar plea was raised by the appellants before the sessions court as well as the High Court. The High Court brushed aside the plea by stating that Exh. D-4 statement was not put to PW-1 when he was examined as a witness. This observation by the Division Bench regarding Exh. D-4 is partially correct. In fact, when PW-1 was cross-examined, his attention was drawn to Exh. D-4, but it is incorrect to say that the said witness was confronted with Exh. D-4 statement as such during cross-examination. PW-1, when asked whether he had given any statement to the doctor in the hospital, said he did not remember to have given any statement.
5. When a previous statement is to be proved as an admission, the statement as such should be put to the witness and if the witness denies having given such a statement, it does n
