Back
2011 (7) Supreme 306
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. B.S. Chauhan and A.K. Patnaik, JJ
Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh — Appellant
versus
State of Gujarat & Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 831 of 2010
with
Criminal Appeal No. 832 of 2010
Dated on : 21-10-2011
(b) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ¯ Section 3 ¯ Appreciation of evidence ¯ Contradictions/omissions/improvements/embellishments ¯ While appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions/improvements/embellishments etc. had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial ¯ Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, omissions or improvements on trivial matters without affecting the case of the prosecution should not be made the court to reject the evidence in its entirety. (Para 9)
(c) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ¯ Section 3 ¯ Interested witness ¯ The term ‘interested’ postulates that the witness must have some direct interest in having the accused somehow or the other convicted for some other reason. (Para 10)
(d) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ¯ Section 5 ¯ Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus ¯ Principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable to a criminal trial in India. (Para 13)
(e) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ¯ Section 134 ¯ Single witness ¯ As a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable ¯ There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness ¯ That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872 ¯ But if there are doubts about the testimony, the court will insist on corroboration ¯ In fact, it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. (Para 10)
Facts of the case
On 21.9.2000, the complainant, deceased along with both the appellants traveling in two cars had gone to see the land ¯ The complainant PW.1 and deceased were in one car, while appellant No.1 in another car being driven by the appellant No.2 ¯ Thereafter, they came back and decided to meet the owner of the land PW3 ¯ At about 2.30 p.m. when they were coming back in their respective cars, both the appellants asked the deceased and complainant to stop their car ¯ Both the appellants got down from the car with swords and started giving indiscriminate blows to deceased, when the complainant and deceased had come out from their cars after receiving signal given by the appellants ¯ The complainant got scared and started running away ¯ He was chased by one of the appellants ¯ Complainant informed the brother of the deceased on telephone about the incident, also filed complaint with the police station ¯ The police reached the place of incident recovered the dead body and sent the same for postmortem in which 33 injuries were found ¯ The investigating officer was searching the appellants, arrested the two appellants on 3.10.2000 when they were going by car, recovered blood stained clothes from the dicky of the car, also recovered the blood stained swords on the disclosure statements of the two appellants ¯ After investigation, the IO submitted charge sheet against the two appellants hence they were put on trial.
Findings of the Court
Concurrent findings of Sessions Judge and High Court convicting the two accused appellants under Section 302 read with Section 114 IPC held proper.
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
1. Both these appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 4.5.2009 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.278 of 2002, by which it has affirmed the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court dated 14.12.2001 in Sessions Case No.24 of 2001 in which the appellants got convicted under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called “IPC”) and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- each.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are :-
(a) That Shri Bharat Rajendraprasad Trivedi (PW.1) lodged the complaint on 21.9.2000 that the complainant, deceased along with both the appellants had gone to see the land in their two cars. The complainant (PW.1) and deceased were in one car, while appellant No.1 in another car being driven by the appellant No.2. Thereafter, they came back and decided to meet the owner of the land Smt. Jadaavben Ambalal Parmar (PW.3). Thereafter, at about 2.30 p.m. when they were coming back in their respective cars, both the appellants asked the deceased and complainant to stop their car. Both the appellants got down from the car with swords and started giving indiscriminate blows to Moiyuddin Shaikh, deceased, when the complainant and deceased had come out from their cars after receiving signal given by the appellants. The complainant got scared and started running away. He was chased by the appellant Rameshbhai Ramlal Kahar.
(b) The complainant Bharat Rajendraprasad Trivedi informed the brother of the deceased on telephone about the incident and also filed the complaint with Vadodara Taluka Police Station vide C.R. No.94 of 2000. The police reached the place of incident and recovered the dead body. The dead body was sent for post-mortem in S.S.G. Hospital Vadodara. According to the post-mortem report, a total of 33 injuries had been caused on the body of the deceased. In the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage following multiple incised wounds.
(c) The Investigating Officer had been searching for the appellants. Both the appellants/accused were arrested on 3.10.2000 while they were travelling in the Car No.GJ-6 JJ- 2408 on the highway. The car was checked and in the dicky of the car blood stained clothes were found. Blood stained swords were also recovered on the disclosure statements of the appellants. One of the swords was not having the handle.
(d) After conclusion of the investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet and the matter was committed to the Sessions Court, Vadodara. After conclusion of the trial, the Sessions Court vide judgment and order dated 14.12.2001 convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 114 IPC and both of them have been sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each.
3. Being aggrieved, both the appellants preferred appeal before the High Court which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 4.5.2009. Hence, these appeals.
4. We have heard Mr. Vikas Singh and Mr. Nachiketa Joshi learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Hemantika Wahi with Ms. Jesal, learned counsel for the State.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that recovery of the blood stained clothes after 13 days from the car of the appellants is totally improbable and so is the recovery of blood stained swords. Recoveries made after such a long period cannot be relied upon as it can be presumed that the incriminating articles/materials had been planted. There had been material contradictions/embellishments/improvements in the statements of witnesses which made the case of the prosecution totally improbable. Complainant (PW.1), deceased and appellant No.1 were partners in the business of sale and purchase of lands. In fact, there is sufficient material on record to show that in the sale transaction of land from Smt. Jadaavben Ambalal Parmar (PW.3), as the entire amount
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
