Back
2010 Supreme(SC) 527
2010 (5) Supreme 193
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi and C.K. Prasad, JJ.
Suraj & Anr. — Appellants
versus
State of U.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1223 of 2004
Decided on : 6-07-2010
IMPORTANT POINT
Where appellants alongwith three others were convicted for causing death of deceased by assaulting him with lathis and farsas merely the fact that doctor had been declared hostile, his entire evidence could not be wiped out and for the purpose of nature of injuries and the cause of death, his evidence could be relied on.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 302/149, 147 and 148-Prosecution of appellants alongwith three others for causing death of deceased by assaulting him with lathis and farsas-Conviction by Trial Court-Appeal-Dismissed by High Court-Appeal-PW.1 who appened to be wife of deceased, PW.2, an independent witness and PW.3,daughter of deceased clearly stated that it was appellants alongwith other accused persons who had assaulted the deceased with pharsa, lathi etc. -Doctor had found contusion and incised wounds on person of deceased- Eye-witnesses’ account was consistent and there was no material contradiction in their evidence to discredit their truthfulness- Held prosecution was able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts-Appeal having no merit dismissed. (Paras 12, 13)
Criminal Trial- Conviction of appellants alongwith three others for causing death of deceased by assaulting him with lathis and farsas- Appeal-Dismissed by High Court-Appeal-Plea of appellants that doctor in his evidence had not stated about any injury sustained by deceased nor whispered about cause of death and that doctor had been declared hostile by prosecution itself - Evidence on record that PW. 6 ,Doctor had stated all injuries sustained by deceased- In his evidence as also in the post-mortem report, he had stated that deceased had sustained sixteen ante-mortem injuries of various kinds and descriptions i.e. contusion, abrasion,laceration, incised & punctured wounds- Injury nos. 7,8,10 and 11 had been found to be punctured wounds- Cause of death, according to the evidence of this witness as also post- mortem report was haemorrhage and shock as a result of said anti-mortem injuries- He had also proved post-mortem report and from the record, it was evident that same had been marked as Exhibit 12-Hence held that appellant’s submission was un-founded on facts- True it is that PW.6 Dr. had been declared hostile but that itself shall not wipe out his entire evidence- In his evidence he had given the details of injuries sustained by deceased and the cause of death - Merely the fact that PW.6 Dr. had been declared hostile, his entire evidence could not be wiped out and for the purpose of nature of injuries and the cause of death, his evidence could be relied on-Appeal dismissed. (Parsas 8 to 11)
Facts of the Case :
Appellants along with three others were prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of deceased by assaulting him with lathis and farsas. Trial Court convicted appellants for said offence .Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.
2.Present Appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
PW.1 who happened to be wife of deceased, PW.2, an independent witness and PW.3,daughter of deceased clearly stated that it was appellants alongwith other accused persons who had assaulted the deceased with pharsa, lathi etc. Doctor had found contusion and incised wounds on person of deceased. Eye-witnesses’ account was consistent and there was no material contradiction in their evidence to discredit their truthfulness. Held Prosecution was able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Appeal having no merit was dismissed.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
C.K. Prasad, J. —
1.Appellants Suraj and Hari Singh alongwith Shyam, Gulab and Baladin were put on trial for offence under Sections 302/149, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Baladin died during the pendency of the trial. All of them were convicted for offence under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by Judgment and Order dated 8th December, 1981 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Sessions Trial No. 201 of 1980. Shyam, Gulab and Appellant Suraj were also convicted under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment. Appellant Hari Singh was also found guilty under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. All the convicted persons including the appellants herein preferred appeal before the Allahabad High Court which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 3024 of 1981. Convicts Shyam and Gulab died during the pendency of appeal and their appeal had abated. However, appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by its Judgment and Order dated 12th May, 2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3024 of 1981.
2.Aggrieved by the said, appellants have preferred this Appeal by Special leave to this Court.
3.According to the prosecution, on 29th March, 1980 at about 10 A.M., Smt. Sirawan (PW.1) along with her minor daughter, Dhanti (PW.3) and her husband Mansha (deceased) alongwith one Chitwa Chamar were going to harvest masur crop belonging to the deceased. When they were passing through a lane and came near Gurwahi Bakhari of Tulsi Dass, all the accused persons variously armed arrived there. Appellant Suraj was alleged to have been armed with farsa whereas Hari Singh was armed with lathi. Prosecution had further alleged that accused Baladin abused Mansha and exhorted to kill him. At this, all the accused persons including the appellants assaulted Mansha with farsa, lathi etc. On alarm being raised by Smt. Sirawan (PW.1), Dhanti (PW.3) and Chitwa Chamar, villagers including Swamidin (PW.2) collected at the spot and being challenged by them, the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence. Smt. Sirawan (PW.1), Dhanti (PW.3) and Swamidin (PW.2) witnessed the accused persons including the appellant Suraj and Hari Singh assaulting Mansha with lathi and Farsa. According to the prosecution, while the informant, Smt. Sirawan (PW.1) was making arrangements of bullock cart for shifting her injured husband-Mansha, he died.
4.Appellants denied to have committed the offence. From the trend of the cross-examination, their defence is of false implication. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution had examined altogether six witnesses out of whom Smt. Sirawan (PW.1), Swamidin (PW.2) and Dhanti (PW.3) claimed to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Prosecution had also examined Dr. A.K. Srivastava (PW.6), the Medical Officer, who had conducted post mortem on the dead body of Mansha on 30th March, 1980 at 10.30 A.M.
5.Trial Court, relying on the evidence of the eye-witnesses and the doctor, held the appellants guilty as above which has been affirmed in the appeal.
6.Mrs. Shally Bhasin Maheshwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants raises a very short point. She submits that the doctor in his evidence has not stated about any injury sustained by the deceased nor whispered about the cause of death. She also points out that the post- mortem report has neither been brought on record nor proved or marked as an exhibit. It has also been pointed out that the doctor has not stated anything about the nature of injury i.e. grievous or simple, sustained by the deceased. Not only this, according to Mrs. Maheshwari, the doctor has been declared hostile by the prosecution itself and was cross-examined. She also emphasizes that even in the c
