1994 Supreme(SC) 1260
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY. JJ
SUPERINTENDENT AND REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, West BENGAL
Vs.
MANGAL PATHAK
Decided on December 9, 1994
ARUNA BENERJI, G.S.CHATTERJEE, R.D.UPADHYAY, R.L.Kohli, TAPAS RAY
Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 148, 302/149 and 326/34 - Appreciation of evidence - Trial Court recorded conviction accepting evidence of eye witnesses P.Ws. land 12, corroborated by P.Ws. 3 to 7 - High Court disbelieved P.W.12 simply on the ground that he knew and recognised assailants but did not mention their names to doctor who examined, him - P.W.1 was disbelieved about his conduct in not asking villagers to go to the rescue of his father - High Court has not examined evidence in proper perspective - Names of assailants were given in F.I.R. given at earliest moment. P.W. 12 was seriously injured whose presence on spot cannot be doubted - F.I.R. appearing most natural and true report without there being any indication of any fabrication - Trial Court gave good and valid reasons for accepting evidence of witnesses – View taken by High Court in acquitting all accused is erroneous.
(Paras 5 & 6)
(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 148, 302/149 and 326/34 - Nine accused prosecuted for offences under - Bitter enmity between parties as they were involved in criminal cases. Eye witnesses P.Ws. 1 & 12 are interested witnesses - In F.I.R. only names of accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 8 & 9 mentioned - It may not be safe to convict those accused whose names not mentioned in F.I.R. - In evidence of eye-witnesses specific overt act attributed to accused A2,3 & 8 - Medical evidence corroborating in respect of overt act committed by three accused - It is safe to convict those the accused and give benefit of doubt to others - Conviction and, sentence recorded by trial Court against those three restored. (Paras 7 & 8)
( 1 ) THIS appeal by the State of West Bengal is directed against the judgment of the division bench of the Calcutta High court. There are nine respondents namely original Accused 1 to 9. They were tried for offences punishable under S. 148, 302/149 and 326/34. The trial court convicted and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under S. 302/149 and lesser terms of imprisonment for minor offences. On an appeal the High court by the impugned judgment set aside the judgment of the trial court and acquitted all of them of all the charges. Hence the present appeal.
( 2 ) ALL the accused and the deceased Brahmananda Pathak, his brother Public Witness 12 the injured witness and his son Public Witness 1, Amalendu Pathak belong to Villagesurulia in Purulia District. There were disputes between the deceased and his men on one side aree days before the present incident she fell ill and she expressed a desire to see the deceased. On 23/7/1980 it was a Wednesday. The deceased and his son Public Witness 1 were in their rice go down in Purulia Town. Towards evening Public Witness 12, brother of the deceased came there and informed the deceased about the deteriorating condition of his other and her desire to see him. Thereafter the deceased and PWs 1 and 12 started together to their house to see the old lady. Public Witness 1 had a bicycle with him and a three-cell torch and a bag containing some papers. On the way to their house they had a grocery shop. They dropped in there for sometime and at about 8. 45 p. m. they were proceeding a place called Rakhabari, and there they noted 7 or 8 persons coming towards them from the opposite direction. Public Witness 1 flashed the torch and saw Accused 2,3,4,8 and 9 and some others and they were carrying various weapons. A-8 was armed with a tabela, A-2 and A-3 were armed with swords and A-4 and A-9 were armed with tangis. Public Witness 1 apprehending danger gave his cycle to the deceased and asked him to leave immediately. While the deceased was ready to ride on the cycle, A-8 Aswini Pathak reached there and assaulted the deceased on his neck with the tabela with the result that the deceased fell down on the ground. Public Witness 1 immediately ran from the place raising an alarm. While running he looked back and saw his uncle Public Witness 12 also being assaulted by A-8 and others. Public Witness 1 reached a locality called Hanchuk Para and raised an alarm. Hearing this PWs 2, 3, 6 and 7 came out followed by others from their respective houses. Public Witness 1 immediately reported the incident to them and also mentioned the names of Accused 2,3,4,8 and 9 as the assailants.
( 3 ) AFTER Public Witness 1 had run away from the place as stated above, Public Witness 12 seeing that his brother deceased had fallen, went to save him and caught hold of A-8. Both of them fell down. At that time A-2 and A-3 attacked him with swords and inflicted injuries on his neck and back. As Public Witness 12 tried to resist the attack on him by raising his hands he sustained bleeding injuries on his hands and his right little finger got severed and his wrist-watch also fell down. At that time the deceased got up and was trying to run away but he was chased and was assaulted by the assailants. Public Witness 12 in the meantime managed to get up and walk up to Hanchuk Para. At the time of the incident there was moonlight and little thereafter there was a shower of rain. At the request of Public Witness 1 some of the residents of Hanchuk Para went to inform the police over the phone and someothers made arrangement for carrying Public Witness 12 to Purulia Hospital for treatment. Public Witness 1 was informed that his father had expired. On the information received at about 11,15 p. m. the police arrived. On their way they saw Public Witness 12 being carried. Public Witness 16, Police Sub-Inspector then recorded the statement, Ex. P-1 of Public Witness 1 and sent it to the police