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

2011 Supreme(SC) 243

2011 (2) Supreme 210
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and H.L. Gokhale, JJ.
Prahalad Patel — Appellant(s)
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh — Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No. 1209 of 2007
Decided on : 2-3-2011

IMPORTANT POINT
Admissibility of evidence of related witness.

Headnote:(a) Criminal Trial – Related witness – Testimony of witness cannot be thrown out simply because he is related to the deceased – More so when it is corroborated by other witnesses. (Para 6)

        (2005) 9 SCC 616; (2006) 10 SCC 163 : AIR 2006 SC 2716 – Relied upon

        (b) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Judicial review – When the Courts below on proper appreciation of evidence relying on acceptable materials, arrive at a conclusion, it cannot be interfered with in absence of perversity. (Para 8)

       Facts of the case:

        This is an appeal against conviction and sentence u/s 302, IPC.

       Finding of the Court:

        There is no perversity in the judgment of the Courts below.

       

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J. —

1) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 14.03.2005 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 774 of 1996 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the judgment dated 26.02.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sagar, in Sessions Case No. 196 of 1995 convicting the appellant herein under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘the IPC’) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

2) Brief Facts:

(a) In Village Chandpur, the accused Prahalad Patel, while cultivating his land had thrown bushes on the path. Daulat-the deceased objected to it and told the accused not to throw the bushes on the path, because of this, there was an altercation between the deceased and the accused. Due to this incident, the accused developed a grudge against the deceased. On 01.02.1995, at around 12 hours, when the deceased was breaking stones in the mine and one Nanhebhai (PW-1) was collecting it nearby, at that time, accused Prahalad Patel came there with an axe and inflicted several injuries to the deceased by hitting him at his right leg, left hand, left shoulder and on back of his head, due to which, he fell down on the earth and blood started oozing out. One Gudda-brother of the accused was also present in the mine but, out of fear, Nanhebhai (PW-1) and Gudda did not try to save the deceased. Thereafter, Nanhebhai (PW-1) rushed to the house of Daulat and narrated the whole incident to his brother and mother. They went to the mine and brought Daulat. He was taken to Police Station Rahli but by that time he became unconscious. The report of the incident (Ex. P-1) was lodged by Nanhebhai (PW-1) in the Police Station. Thereafter, Daulat was sent for medical examination to the hospital at Rahli. Dr. Gupta (PW-9) examined him and issued a report (Ex.P-10) mentioning various injuries. On the advise of the doctor, in an unconscious condition, he was taken to Medical College Hospital at Jabalpur for further treatment. During treatment, he succumbed to injuries. The dead body was sent for post-mortem and Dr. A.K.Jain (PW-16) conducted the post-mortem and prepared a report (Ex. P-21). According to him, the cause of death was due to cut and other injuries.

(b) During investigation, police prepared a spot map and seized the blood stained sand and simple sand from the place of incident. The accused was taken into custody and the axe was recovered at his instance. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 302 IPC.

(c) The accused denied having committed any offence and stated that he had enmity with Nanhebhai (PW-1) because there is a case pending against the brother of Nanhebhai for causing injuries to his father and, therefore, he falsely implicated him.

(d) The Sessions Judge, on consideration of the materials, by judgment dated 26.02.1996, accepted the prosecution’s case and found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,000/-.

(e) Being aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge, the accused preferred an appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The Division Bench of the High Court, by its impugned judgment dated 14.03.2005, upheld the conclusion arrived at by the Sessions Judge and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused.

f) Questioning the same, the accused had filed the above appeal before this Court after obtaining special leave

3) Heard Mr. D.B. Goswami, learned counsel for the accused/appellant and Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned counsel for the respondent-State.

4) There is no dispute that there was an altercation between the accused and the deceased on a petty issue and the accused nurtured grudge against the deceased. On 01.02.1995, when the deceased was work















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