Back
2010 (2) Supreme 272
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dalveer Bhandari and K. S. Radhakrishnan, JJ.
Abdul Mannan — Appellant
versus
State of Assam — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.946 of 2002
Decided on : 18-02-2010
Facts of the Case :
Appellant along with other accused persons was prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of deceased by assaulting him with lathis. Trial Court examined eight witnesses and on conclusion of trial accused were acquitted by Trial Court. Against acquittal, State preferred an appeal. High Court held that view taken by Trial Court was not a possible or a plausible view.
2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
Trial Court did not carefully marshall the prosecution evidence on record and was swayed away by fact that injuries were caused by ‘sharp edged weapon’ and ultimately, those injuries caused by sharp edged weapon were not found by the doctor in his evidence. The entire prosecution evidence was discarded solely on this ground. High Court however held that words ‘sharp edged’ were added subsequently between the two lines in the report-. On going through original record findings of High Court were held justified. The Court must examine the entire case comprehensively. Even if some inconsistency or discrepancy is discovered, then its impact on the total prosecution version must be carefully examined. In the instant case, how any court could legitimately ignore the testimony of five eye witnesses,including two injured eye witnesses, particularly when their version was wholly consistent and gets full corroboration from the medical evidence. The statements of all eye witnesses including the injured eye witnesses was wholly consistent and was fully corroborated with the medical evidence. Trial Court gravely erred in ignoring the most important and material aspect of the prosecution version. The appellant had been named in the F.I.R. All the eye witnesses including the injured eye witnesses had categorically named the appellant and attributed specific role to him. In this view of the matter, Trial Court was not justified in acquitting accused when there was overwhelming evidence against the appellant and other accused. It was not a case that the view taken by Trial Court was a plausible or a possible view. The judgment of the Trial Court was wholly unsustainable- High Court in the impugned judgment was justified in setting aside judgment of Trial Court. On close scrutiny and examination of the impugned judgment, held that, in the impugned judgment, High Court had taken into consideration all relevant factors in dealing with the appeal from the order of acquittal- Impugned order of High Court was held unexceptionable. Appeal, having no merit was dismissed.
Result : Appeal, dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dalveer Bhandari, J. —
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 1998 dated 22nd June, 2001.
2. Abdul Mannan, Abdul Salam and Abdul Subhan have preferred an appeal against the impugned judgment. The appeal of Abdul Salam and Abdul Subhan was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 13th September, 2002, as they did not surrender. The present surviving appeal is only on behalf of the accused appellant - Abdul Mannan.
3. The brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of the appeal are recapitulated as under:
On 17th February, 1994, one Abdul Kuddus Khan lodged a written First Information Report [for short, ‘F.I.R.’] before the Chaudhury Bazar Police Out Post stating inter alia that on that date at about 2.00 p.m. while his elder brother Abdul Hakim was returning home from Masjid, six accused persons named in the F.I.R., namely, Subhan, Abdul Mannan, Abdul Hanan, Abdul Sukur, Abdul Kurdish and Abdul Salam attacked and assaulted him. On hearing the screams and loud cries for the help of Abdul Hakim, another elder brother, the informant, namely, Abdul Karim and one of his neighbours, Abdul Kalam, rushed to the spot and intervened, whereupon those two persons were also assaulted and they sustained injuries. The injured persons were taken to the hospital and Abdul Karim succumbed to injuries after fourteen days.
4. The police after usual investigation submitted a charge sheet against all the six accused persons. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaon framed charges under Section 302/323/34 IPC. The Trial Court examined eight witnesses and on conclusion of the trial, the accused were acquitted by the Trial Court. Against acquittal, the State of Assam preferred an appeal before the High Court.
5. In the impugned judgment, the High Court carefully examined the entire evidence and relevant legal position, as settled by this Court in a number of cases. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has clearly observed that the view taken by the Trial Court was not a possible or a plausible view. The High Court termed the judgment of the Trial Court as perverse and wholly untenable.
6. In view of the conflicting judgments, we ourselves looked into the entire evidence and the relevant documents of the case. There are five eye witnesses. Ajijur Rahman, P.W.1 had known the accused persons, who lived in the same neighbourhood. He categorically stated that he saw the appellant and the other accused beating the deceased with lathis. Fearing that the accused might beat him, his sister took him away. He also stated that the deceased was taken to Nagaon because the injuries sustained by him were critical in nature.
7. Abdul Kalam, P.W.2 stated that the accused were known to him because they live in his neighbourhood. He also stated that the appellant and the other accused gave lathi blows to the deceased.
8. Abdul Malik was examined as P.W.3. He clearly stated that Abdul Mannan gave lathi blows to Abdul Karim along with the other accused. He asked them not to beat Abdul Karim, but they did not listen to him. The appellant and the other accused ran away after causing injuries.
9. Abdul Hakim P.W.4 also clearly stated that the appellant and other accused gave beating to Hafez Kalam and him as well with lathis. They gave lathis blows to Abdul Karim. Abdul Hakim stated that he also received injuries on his head and below the left eye.
10. Abdul Kuddus Khan, P.W.5 also corroborated the prosecution version and stated that the appellant and others had given beating to his brothers Abdul Hakim and Abdul Kalam. He also stated that his other brother Abdul Karim came on the spot from the western direction and shouted ‘don’t beat, don’t beat’ but that had no impact on them. The deceased Abdul Karim fell down on the ground because of the injuries.
11. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaon, Assam, did not carefully marshall the prosecution evidence on record and was swayed away by
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
