2010 Supreme(SC) 210

2010 (2) Supreme
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B. Sudershan Reddy and Surinder Singh Nijjar, JJ.
Javed Masood & Anr. — Appellants
versus
State of Rajasthan — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1522 of 2008
Decided on : 9-03-2010

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. There is nothing in law that precludes the defence to rely on evidence of prosecution witnesses.
2. Concurrent findings of facts are not usually interfered with by Apex court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India by reappreciating the evidence unless it is clearly established that the courts below altogether ignored vital piece of evidence.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860- Sections 148, 201 and 302-Prosecution of accused persons two in number along with others for entering into a criminal conspiracy, unlawful assembly and committing murder of deceased by inflicting injuries on him by deadly weapons Trial court convicted both appellants for offences punishable under Sections 148, 201 and 302 IPC- On appeal, High Court, however, confirmed the sentences awarded against appellants for offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC while setting aside conviction of appellants of the charges under Sections 201 and 148 IPC-Appeal- Held evidence of PW-6 completely ruled out presence of PW-5 at the scene of offence-It was thus clear that PW-5 was not speaking truth and being interested witness obviously made an attempt to implicate appellant in the case due to previous enmity- Entire prosecution case rested upon Parcha Bayan (Ext. P12) lodged by PW-5- Once his presence was disbelieved, whole case of prosecution collapsed like a pack of cards- In addition, evidence of independent witnesses PWs 18, 29 and 30, also casted a serious shadow on evidence of PWs 5, 13 and 14 as regards their presence at the scene of offence- Under said circumstances, held difficult and impossible to place any reliance whatsoever on evidence of PW-5 who was a highly interested and partisan witness-No reliance could be placed on his evidence in order to convict appellants of charge under Section 302, IPC- For the same reasons, evidence of PWs 13 and 14 also held liable to be discarded- None of them was speaking truth- Courts below altogether ignored said vital aspects of the matter-On careful analysis, held difficult to accept the evidence of PWs 5, 13 and 14 to sustain conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants- No other acceptable evidence on record based on which the charge could be held proved against appellants-Conviction of appellants could not be sustained-Appeal allowed. (Paras 15 to 18)

        Constitution of India,1950-Article 136-It is well settled and needs no restatement that concurrent findings of facts are not usually interfered with by Apex court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India by reappreciating the evidence unless it is clearly established that the courts below altogether ignored vital piece of evidence and rested their conclusion placing reliance on the evidence which cannot be accepted on the face of it. (Para 8)

       Facts of the Case :

        Accused persons two in number along with others were prosecuted herein in the instant case for entering into a criminal conspiracy, unlawful assembly and committing murder of deceased by inflicting injuries on him by deadly weopans. Trial court convicted both appellants for offences punishable under Sections 148, 201 and 302 IPC. On appeal, High Court, however, confirmed the sentences awarded against appellants for offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC while setting aside conviction of appellants of the charges under Sections 201 and 148 IPC.

        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        It was held that evidence of PW-6 completely ruled out presence of PW-5 at the scene of offence.It was thus clear that PW-5 was not speaking truth and being interested witness obviously made an attempt to implicate appellant in the case due to previous enmity. Entire prosecution case rested upon Parcha Bayan (Ext. P12) lodged by PW-5. Once his presence was disbelieved, whole case of prosecution collapsed like a pack of cards. In addition, evidence of independent witnesses PWs 18, 29 and 30, also casted a serious shadow on evidence of PWs 5, 13 and 14 as regards their presence at the scene of offence. Under said circumstances, it was held difficult and impossible to place any reliance whatsoever on evidence of PW-5 who was a highly interested and partisan witness.No reliance could be placed on his evidence in order to convict appellants of charge under Section 302, IPC. For the same reasons, evidence of PWs 13 and 14 was also held liable to be discarded. None of them was speaking truth. Courts below altogether ignored said vital aspects of the matter.On careful analysis, held difficult to accept the evidence of PWs 5, 13 and 14 to sustain conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants. No other acceptable evidence was on record based on which the charge could be held proved against appellants. Conviction of appellants could not be sustained. Appeal allowed.

       Result : Appeal allowed.