Back
2007 Supreme(SC) 1301
2007(7) Supreme 397
Supreme Court of india
(From Bombay High Court)
S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
Manilal Hiraman Chaudhari — Petitioner
versus
State of Maharashtra — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 1200 of 2006
Decided on : 09-10-2007
important point
Being inimical to accused would not discredit an otherwise truthful witness.
Headnote:(a)Criminal Trial – Evidence – PW-2, a labour contractor and also a member of the Panchayat, categorically stating about the vow taken by the appellant for killing the deceased – His not informing the Police or others about the vow, by itself, cannot be a ground for discarding his evidence. (Para 6)
2006 (12) SCALE 259 – Referred.
(b)Criminal Trial – Witness – Being inimical to accused would not discredit an otherwise truthful witness. (Para 7)
(c)Criminal Trial – Witness – Such minor contradiction as colour of the car being light or dark blue, are not of much significance. (Para 9)
(d)Criminal Trial – Evidence – Only because there had been profuse bleeding, the same by itself would not lead to the conclusion that the deceased was not in a position to speak. (Para 14)
(e)Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302, r/w Section 34; section 341 r/w section 34; and 506 – The witnesses being trustworthy and evidence converging to guilt of the accused, no infirmity in impugned judgment – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 12, 13 and 17 to 19)
Facts of the case:
1.Manilal Hiraman Chaudhari (Appellant) along with Anil Shivram Pawar (Accused No.1), Premraj Hirman Chaudhary (Accused No. 3) and Bapu @ Gangaram Shantaram Salunkhe (Accused No.4) were tried for committing the murder of one Bhaulal Jadhav. Bhaulal Jadhav was an accused in a case of murder of the father of the appellant and accused No. 3 and he was murdered in revenge.
2.Trial Judge convicted all the accused persons under Section 302 r/w Section 34 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of Accused No.1. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were also convicted under Section 341 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused No. 2 was further convicted under Section 506 IPC.
3.Appeal thereagainst to the Supreme Court was dismissed.
Findings of the Court:
No infirmity found in the impugned judgment of the High Court.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
judgment
S.B. SINHA, J. —
1.One Manilal Hiraman Chaudhari is before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 17.10.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench at Aurangabad.
Appellant herein along with Anil Shivram Pawar (Accused No.1), Premraj Hirman Chaudhary (Accused No. 3) and Bapu @ Gangaram Shantaram Salunkhe (Accused No.4) were tried for committing the murder of one Bhaulal Jadhav. Bhaulal Jadhav was an accused in a case of murder of the father of the appellant and accused No. 3. Allegedly, when cremation of Hiraman was taking place, the appellant took a vow to take revenge of murder of his father. Bhaulal (deceased) on or about 13.02.1991 at about 11.00 a.m. was going to Jalgaon on a motorcycle. He was accompanied by Lotu Eko Patil (PW-4). When they were at distance of about 3 k.m. from Jalgaon, the accused persons who were in a Maruti van parked the vehicle by the side of road got down. The motorcycle was stopped by Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Premraj (Accused No. 3) is said to have caught hold Bhaulal and Manilal (Accused No.2) and Gangaram (Accused No. 4) inflicted stab injuries with knives. An attempt to rescue the deceased by PW-4 resulted in a threat to him, whereupon he started running towards Jalgaon. Bhaulal also tried to save himself by running away from the said place. He was chased by Accused Nos. 2 and 3 and was again assaulted with knives.
PW-4 immediately went to the Taluka Police Station Jalgaon on a vehicle of a passer by. A First Information Report was lodged at about 11.45 a.m. Bhaulal was taken to the hospital in a tractor. At about 12.45 p.m. he died.
2.At the trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses. Lotu Eco Patil (PW-4) and Govinda Shamrao Marathe (PW-5) were examined as eye-witnesses to the occurrence.
3.We have noticed hereinbefore that PW-4 was the informant. PW-5 was the driver of the Maruti van, which was taken on hire by the accused persons. They had gone to Onkareshwar and Saptashringi Gad in the District of Nasik. The learned Trial Judge upon considering the evidence brought on record convicted all the accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court by reason of the impugned judgment in the criminal appeal filed by the accused persons, however, set aside the conviction and sentence of Accused No.1. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were also convicted under Section 341 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused No. 2 was further convicted under Section 506 IPC.
4.Indisputably, Gangaram Shanta-ram Salunkhe preferred an appeal before this Court against the said judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court, which was marked as Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 2006. The said appeal has since been dismissed by this Court by a judgment and order dated 22.11.2006. [See Gangaram Shantaram Salunkhe v. The State of Maharashtra,1 [2006 (12) SCALE 259]. Premraj Hiraman Chaudhari (Accused No. 3) has not preferred any appeal.
5.Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, inter alia, would submit that it would be hazardous to rely upon the statements of PWs 4 and 5 to base a judgment of conviction against the appellant.
The learned counsel would urge that the contention of Sukhlal in regard to the purported vow taken by the appellant to take revenge of murder of his father cannot be said to have been proved inasmuch as no complaint was made in regard thereto, nor any other person was informed thereabout.
6.PW-2 was a labour contractor. He was also a member of the Panchayat. He categorically stated about the vow taken by the appellant herein for killing the deceased Bhaulal. It may be true that he did not inform the police or others, but the same by itself, in our opinion, cannot be a ground for discarding his evidence.
7.We may now notice the evi
