Back
2007 Supreme(SC) 1256
2007(7) Supreme 351
Supreme Court of india
(From Bombay High Court)
Dr. Arijita Pasayat & Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Bhagwan Bahadure — Petitioner
versus
State of Maharashtra — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 1304 of 2007
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3196 of 2006)
Decided on : 28-09-2007
important points
Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness.It cannot be said as a rule of universal application that whenever one blow is given Section 302 IPC is ruled out.
Headnote:(a)Criminal Trial – Interested witnesses – Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness – It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person – Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made – In such cases, the Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. (Para 7)
AIR 1953 SC 364; (1974) 3 SCC 698; AIR 1957 SC 614 – Relied upon.
(b)Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 299 and 300 – Distinction between ‘murder’ and ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’ – Discussed. (Paras 14 to 17)
(c)Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 300(3) – It is not necessary that the offender intended to cause death, so long as the death ensues from the intentional bodily injury or injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. (Para 18)
AIR 1966 SC 1874 – Relied upon.
(d)Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 300(3) – Even if the intention of accused was limited to the infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and did not extend to the intention of causing death, the offence would be murder. (Para 23)
(e)Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – It cannot be said as a rule of universal application that whenever one blow is given Section 302 IPC is ruled out. (Para 27)
(1976) 4 SCC 382; JT 2002 (6) SC 274; (2003) 10 SCC 472; (2005) 9 SCC 650 – Relied upon.
(f)Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 300 and 304 (Part I) – The offence satisfies the ingredients of ‘culpable homicide of second degree’ and therefore punishable u/s 304, Part I. (Para 28)
Facts of the case:
On 13th March, 2000 Bhagwan Bahadure came to Bhendala and stayed with Kachrabai who was residing with her mother Tuljabai (PW-7). In the morning, of the day of incident, the appellant started quarrelling with the deceased on a flimsy ground. The appellant asked her to accompany him to his house. It is alleged that the appellant, who had a stick in his hand, assaulted the deceased by means of the stick. The deceased fell down on the ground. The appellant gave a blow with the stick on her head, whereby deceased suffered serious injuries and became unconscious. The appellant thereafter threw the stick and ran away towards bus stand. Sidharth (PW 1) witnessed the incident. He went to the roadside for bringing a jeep to carry his mother to the hospital at Pauni. The Medical Officer gave first-aid to the victim as the injuries were severe and she was unconscious. The Medical Officer advised the family members to take her to the Govt. Medical College, Nagpur. In the meanwhile, PW 1 lodged a report in the police station against the appellant. Deceased succumbed to the injuries on way to the hospital at Nagpur.
Trial Court found the appellant guilty of offence u/s 302. Questioning the correctness of the trial court’s order, appeal was preferred before the High Court which was also dismissed.
Findings of the Court:
In the facts and circumstances of the case, appellant should be punished u/s 304, Part I, IPC.
Result : Appeal allowed.
judgment
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. —
1.Leave granted.
2.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.
3.Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
On 13th March, 2000 Bhagwan Bahadure came to Bhendala and stayed with Kachrabai (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), who was residing with her mother Tuljabai (PW-7). In the morning, of the day of incident, the appellant started quarrelling with the deceased on a flimsy ground. The appellant asked her to accompany him to his house. It is alleged that the appellant, who had a stick in his hand, assaulted the deceased by means of the stick. The deceased fell down on the ground. The appellant gave a blow with the stick on her head, whereby deceased suffered serious injuries and became unconscious. The appellant thereafter threw the stick and ran away towards bus stand. Sidharth (PW 1) witnessed the incident. He went to the roadside for bringing a jeep to carry his mother to the hospital at Pauni. The Medical Officer gave first-aid to the victim as the injuries were severe and she was unconscious. The Medical Officer advised the family members to take her to the Govt. Medical College, Nagpur. In the meanwhile, PW 1 lodged a report in the police station against the appellant. Police registered a crime. Deceased succumbed to the injuries on way to the hospital at Nagpur.
4.Considering the evidence of PWs 1,7 & 8, trial court found the evidence to be credible and cogent and accepted the same. He did not find any substance in the plea of the appellant that PWs 1 & 7 were related to the deceased and, therefore, their evidence could not be acted upon. It also did not accept the plea that offence under Section 302 IPC was not made out. Questioning the correctness of the trial court’s order, appeal was preferred before the High Court which as noted above did not find any substance in the appeal.
5.The stand taken before the trial court and the High Court was reiterated in this appeal.
6.Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the judgment.
7.We shall first deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for furthering prosecution version. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.
8.In Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab (AIR 1953 SC 364) it has been laid down as under:-
“A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts.”
9.The above decision has since been followed in Guli Chand
