2007 Supreme(SC) 948

2007(5) Supreme 451
Supreme Court of India
(From Bombay High Court)
B.N. Agrawal, P.P. Naolekar & Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.
Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahiman Patel and Ors. — Petitioner
versus
State of Maharashtra — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 9 of 2001
with
Criminal Appeal No.. 504 OF 2000
and
Criminal Appeal No.. 60 OF 2001
Decided on : 10-07-2007

Headnote:Criminal trial – Interested person – When the evidence of the witnesses is consistent and corroborated by medical evidence, it is not possible to discard the same on the ground that they were interested persons. (Para 17)

       Criminal trial – Injuries on the person of the accused persons – The medical doctor who examined the accused persons opined that all the injuries found on the aforesaid accused persons were simple and minor and they were possible by accidental blows from accused upon themselves while they were attacking some other persons – Therefore, it cannot be said that the minor and simple injuries on the accused persons have not been explained by the prosecution – It is well-settled that if injuries on the defence are not explained by the prosecution, the same may be taken to be a ground to discard the prosecution case, in case the truthfulness of prosecution case is otherwise doubted – But, where evidence of the injured eyewitnesses is consistent apart from evidence of independent eyewitnesses, failure of the prosecution to explain the minor and simple injuries on the defence cannot be taken to be a ground to reject the testimony of such witnesses. (Para 20)

       Criminal trial – Evidence – A not trustworthy evidence of a non-eyewitness cannot be a ground to reject consistent evidence of injured eyewitnesses and independent eyewitnesses, more so, when their evidence is corroborated by medical evidence of the three deceased persons and the injured eyewitnesses. (Para 21)

       Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 148 and 324/149 IPC – In view of the unimpeachable evidence of the witnesses corroborated by medical evidence, it was held that High Court was quite justified in convicting A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-10 and A-11 but the sentences of imprisonment awarded against A-11 should be reduced to the period already undergone. (Para 23)

       Facts of the case:

       Seventeen accused persons were charged and tried for offences under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 302 read with Section 34, 307/149, 326/149 and 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code and by judgment rendered by the Trial Court they were acquitted of all the charges. Against the order of acquittal an appeal was preferred by the State of Maharashtra before the High Court during the pendency of which Abbas Yunus Sonde [A-8] and Ibrahim alias Abdul Rahman Mohammad Kasim Patel [A-9] died, as such, appeal against them abated. The order of acquittal was confirmed by the High Court in relation to seven accused persons viz., Qasim Hasanmiya Bedekar [A-7], Iqbal Abbas Sonde [A-12], Sharfuddin Abdul Rahiman Patel [A-13], Usman Hasanmiya Bedekar [A-14], Hasanmiya Dhondumiya Bedekar [A-15], Hajirabai w/o Daud Patel [A-16] and Julekhabi w/o Liyakat Sonde [A-17]. So far as, Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahiman Patel [A-5], Siraj Abbas Sonde [A-6] and Idrus Yunus Patel [A-11] are concerned, their acquittal was confirmed in relation to the charge under Section 302 IPC but they were convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. They were further convicted under Section 324/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. So far as Abdul Latif Hasanmiya Bedekar [A-1], Liyakat Abbas Sonde [A-2], Shaikhali Kasam Karjikar [A-3], Usman Abdul Rahiman Patel [A-4] and Daud Abdul Rahiman Patel [A-10] are concerned, they were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. These accused persons were also convicted under Sections 148 and 324/149 IPC but, no separate sentence was awarded.

       Findings of the Court:

       High Court was quite justified in convicting A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-10 and A-11 but the sentences of imprisonment awarded against A-11 should be reduced to the period already undergone.

       Result: Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2001 is allowed in part and Criminal Appeal No. 504 of 2000 is dismissed.

       important points

       When the evidence of the witnesses is consistent and corroborated by medical evidence, it is not possible to discard the same on the ground that they were interested persons.

       Where evidence of the injured eyewitnesses is consistent apart from evidence of independent eyewitnesses, failure of the prosecution to explain the minor and simple injuries on the defence cannot be taken to be a ground to reject the testimony of such witnesses.

       A not trustworthy evidence of a non-eyewitness cannot be a ground to reject consistent evidence of injured eyewitnesses and independent eyewitnesses, more so, when their evidence is corroborated by medical evidence of the three deceased persons and the injured eyewitnesses.