SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(SC) 158

2009(1) Supreme 747
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Mohabbat and Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of M.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3251 of 2008)
Decided on : 03-02-2009

Advocates appeared:
For theAppellant :P.C. Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Amboj Agarwal and Mrs. Santosh Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Govind Goel, C.D. Singh, Sunny Chowdhary, Vairagya Vardhan Dubey, Aitya Singh and Ms. Upasana Nath, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Merely because the eye-witnesses are family members or closed relatives, their evidence cannot per se be discarded.

Headnote:Criminal Trial – Interested witnesses – Merely because the eye-witnesses are family members or closed relatives, their evidence cannot per se be discarded. (Paras 7 and 10)

        AIR 1953 SC 364; (1974) 3 SCC 698; AIR 1957 SC 614; AIR 1965 SC 202; AIR 1973 SC 2407; (2002) 3 SCC 76; (2002) 8 SCC 381; (2005)10 SCC 404; (2007)1 SCC 699; SLP (Crl.) No.3220 of 2007 – Relied upon.

       Facts of the case :

        1. On 02.09.2000, at about 2.30 p.m. when Yunus (the ‘deceased’) was returning back to Dhulana the accused persons armed with swords attacked him.

        2. The deceased told the village Chowkidar Ranchhod (PW-7) that it was accused persons who caused injuries to him. At that time Yunus (the deceased) was alive. Thereafter, he was taken to hospital where he was found dead.

        3. The trial Court found the accused persons guilty.

        4. The High Court dismissed the appeals.

       Finding of the Court :

        Prosecution has not established accusation against A6 and A7. Accusation against A1 has clearly been established.

       Result : Appeals of A6 and A7 allowed and that of A1 dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, which by the impugned judgment disposed of three appeals filed by the accused persons who faced trial in Sessions Trial No.276/2000 before learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar. Nine accused persons faced trial. They were charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and Section 302 and in the alternative under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’). The trial Court convicted each one of them under Section 302 read with Sections 149, 147 and 148 IPC and imposed sentences to life imprisonment and fine with default stipulation of one year and two years respectively.

3. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

On 02.09.2000, Yunus (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) along with Jafar (PW-6) at about 2.30 p.m. left by bike for Ujjain. On the way near Kesur, one Kadar (PW-4) met them, and they had a talk with him. Since it was 4.00 p.m., Jafar (PW-6) and the deceased changed their mind and did not go to Ujjain and came back to Dhulana. On the way accused persons armed with swords were standing there. Seeing that the accused persons were standing the deceased left his bike and ran inside the house of Bagdiram (PW-5) to take shelter. However, the accused persons removed the tin ceiling of the house, entered it and struck sword blows on him. Yunus the deceased came out of the house, where accused again dealt sword blows on him. The accused ran away. Thereafter, Jafar (PW-6) reached the spot. Village Chowkidar Ranchhod (PW-7) also came there. The deceased had a talk with Chowkidar Ranchhod (PW-7). Yunus said that it was accused persons who caused injuries to him. By that time one Mehboob (PW3) of Babeda Village had come there. Jafar requested him to intimate his relatives. He informed Dawood (PW8), Mubarak, Ayub (PW-9). At that time Yunus (the deceased) was alive who told them also that accused have caused these injuries. Thereafter, he was taken to hospital where Dr. P.C. Gupta (PW-11) examined him and found that he is dead. The matter was reported to police by intimation Ex.P/20. The Police Dhar registered Merg No.067/2000 under Section 174, of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’). FIR was chalked out as Ex.P/57 and investigation was started by the Kanwan Police Station as the case was in its jurisdiction. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

After postmortem on the body of the deceased Yunus, Dr. Borasi (PW-10) found the cause of death as shock and hemorrhage from multiple injuries over the body especially wrist imputation and anckle joint injury. The deceased had 9 incised injuries on different parts of the body. Heart chamber was empty. The wrist of left hand was fractured and imputed, ulna, patella were fractured. Left tibia, flbula bones were fractured. Injuries were of grievous nature and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Ex.P/18 is his postmortem report. According to him, the death was within 24 hours from the time of postmortem. Since the accused persons pleaded innocence trial was held. PWs 3, 4, 5 and 7 who were projected as eye witnesses by the prosecution did not support the prosecution version and resiled from the statements made during investigation. However, PW-6 the brother of the deceased who was going alongwith the deceased re-iterated the statements made during investigation. Placing reliance on the evidence of PW-6, the trial Court found the accused persons guilty.

4. In appeal, stand was that when four of the so called eye witnesses did not support the prosecution version, merely only on the basis of evidence of PW-6, the brother of the deceased, conviction should not have been recorded. It has been vehemently urged by learned counsel for the appellants that PW-6 is the relative, so his version should















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top