Back
2009 Supreme(SC) 1796
2009(8) Supreme 46
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveendran, Vs. Sirpurkar and Deepak Verma, JJ.
Bhagwati Prasad — Appellant
versus
State of M.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1368 of 2003
Decided on : 03-12-2009
For the Appellants : S. K. Dubey, Sr. Adv., J. P. Pandey, Yogesh Tiwari (for Somnath Mukherjee) Advs., with him for the Appellant.
For the Respondents:Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, B.S. Banthia, Advs., for the Respondents.
Cases referred :
1. Rachamreddi Chenna Reddy Vs.State of A.P. [1999 (3) SCC 97], Relied. (Para 6)
2.Lilaram (Dead) through Duli Chand Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. [1999 (9) SCC 525], Relied . (Para 6)
3.State of Rajasthan Vs.Hanuman [2001(1) SCC 337], Relied. (Para 6)
4.Munshi Prasad & Ors. Vs. State ofBihar [2002(1) SCC 351]., Relied. (Para 6)
5. Shankar Mahto Vs. State of Bihar [2002(6)SCC 431], Relied. (Para 7)
IMPORTANT POINT
1. Much importance cannot be given to minor discrepancies.
2. Existence of blood or absence thereof is by itself not such a fact as would completely wipe out the evidence of two eye-witnesses.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860 – Sections 148 and 149 read with Section 302 – Prosecution of accused persons six in number for causing death of deceased by assaulting him with lathi and spears – Acquittal by Trial Court – State Appeal – Allowed by High Court setting aside order of acquittal and convicting accused persons – Appeal thereagainst by A6 – Much importance cannot be given to minor discrepancies – The broad features of evidence were that the complainant party wanted to irrigate their field and for that they wanted to open the aqueduct for supplying water to their field and it was at that spot that the incident took place – Once the evidence of two eye witnesses, who themselves were injured eye witnesses, was accepted by High Court after the detailed consideration and when they asserted that the incident took place in the field of the complainant and when placement of the field of the complainant was fixed by the evidence, the evidence becomes immediately acceptable and then such minor discrepancy whether it was spot ‘A’ or spot ‘B’, would be pushed to background – Such minor discrepancy cannot affect the whole prosecution story – It is only when the defence is able to establish that the change of spot was deliberate and such a change was so substantial as would affect the whole prosecution story, that such discrepancies assume importance- In the instant case, it was clearly an open and shut case where the two eye-witnesses in the broad day light witnessed the attack by accused persons- There was absolutely no variance in the version of the two eye-witnesses to the effect that it was the appellant, who gave the spear blow on the back of the deceased – High Court was absolutely right in upsetting the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and convicting the accused persons – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 11 to 15)
Facts of the Case :
Accused persons six in number were prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of deceased by assaulting him with lathi and spears. Trial Court acquitted accused persons of said offence .State Appeal was allowed by High Court setting aside order of acquittal while convicting accused persons.
2. Aggrieved by said judgement of High Court present appeal has been preferred by A6.
Findings of the Court :
Much importance cannot be given to minor discrepancies. The broad features of evidence were that the complainant party wanted to irrigate their field and for that they wanted to open the aqueduct for supplying water to their field and it was at that spot that the incident took place.Once the evidence of two eye-witnesses, who themselves were injured eye-witnesses, was accepted by High Court after the detailed consideration and when they asserted that the incident took place in the field of the complainant and when placement of the field of the complainant was fixed by the evidence, evidence becomes immediately acceptable and then such minor discrepancy whether it was spot ‘A’ or spot ‘B’, would be pushed to background. Such minor discrepancy cannot affect the whole prosecution story. It is only when the defence is able to establish that the change of spot was deliberate and such a change was so substantial as would affect the whole prosecution story, that such discrepancies assume importance- In the instant case, it was clearly an open and shut case where the two eye-witnesses in the broad day light witnessed the attack by accused persons. There was absolutely no variance in the version of the two eye-witnesses to the effect that it was the appellant, who gave the spear blow on the back of the deceased. High Court was absolutely right in upsetting the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and convicting the accused persons.
JUDGMENT
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. —
1. Appellant herein, who was original accused No. 6 (A-6) in the trial, has challenged the judgment of the High Court, allowing the State’s Appeal and setting aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. All the accused persons were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 149 read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called “IPC” or short), while the charge against the present appellant was substantively for the offence under Sections 148 and 302 IPC.
2. The allegation was that all the accused persons, six in number, formed an unlawful assembly and by way of a common object thereof, committed murder of one Ramgopal (deceased) on 18.2.1984 at about 7 A.M. As per the prosecution story, a report came to be lodged by one Kedar Prasad (PW-2) of Bansipura, the brother of Ramgopal (deceased) in Police Station Ambah to the effect that he alongwith the deceased and neighbour farmer Ramgopal (PW-3) S/o Tularam had gone to irrigate their field from the canal in Village Lahdaria situated at a distance of 12 K.M. When they opened the canal for irrigation, at that time, Bhagwati (appellant herein), armed with spear and the other accused persons armed with Lathi came there and stopped them from opening the canal. The said accused persons belonged to Village Lahdaria and they were staying nearby. There were arguments, as the accused persons objected to the complainant party taking water from the canal while the complainant insisted upon taking water, on which Baburam, original accused No. 1 (A- 1) gave Lathi blow upon Kedar Prasad (complainant/ PW-2). When Ramgopal (deceased) came to his rescue, Bhagwati (A-6) gave a spear blow on Ramgopal’ back, as a result of which Ramgopal fell down. It was further stated that other accused persons, namely, Devi Prasad, original accused No. 5 (A-5), Hari Shankar, original accused No. 2 (A-2) and Radhacharan, original accused No. 3 (A-3) also gave Lathi blows on injured Ramgopal (deceased). Ramgopal was then taken to Ambah, but he died on the way.
3. On receipt of the information, the usual investigation started. Inquest report was drawn and the body of Ramgopal (deceased) was sent for post mortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. K.S. Chauhan (PW-1). In the post mortem report, it was shown that the death was caused because of the piercing blow, due to which right lung was damaged by penetrating spear. After the registration of offence, Sambhu Singh, Sub-Inspector (PW-9) arrested all the accused persons, who were initially absconding. After their arrest, Bhagwati (appellant herein) agreed to discover the spear used in the crime from the wheat field, which was accordingly recovered from that place. So also, the other accused persons gave information leading to the recovery of their respective Lathis, which were used in commission of crime. The spear was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, M.P. and after completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed.
4. The Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons of all the offences. The Trial Court held that there was no direct evidence for common object. It was also held that the two eye-witnesses, namely, Kedar Prasad (PW-2), being the brother of Ramgopal (deceased) and Ramgopal (PW-3) S/o Tularam, being the cousin of the deceased could not be relied upon. After quoting from their evidence, the Trial Court found two irregularities, which according to the Trial Court were substantial. The first was relating to the spot of occurrence not being properly identified. For this, the Trial Court found that there was contradiction in the version of the eye-witnesses and the spot map (Exhibit P-4). The second irregularity, according to the Trial Court, was about the inquest panchnama (Exhibit P-12), which was found to be torn. According to the Trial Court, the Police had failed to supply the carbon copy of the panchnama, though direction was given by the Court, which was
