Back
2012 (2) Supreme 353
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Patnaik and Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
Mano Dutt & Anr. — Appellants
versus
State of U.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.77 of 2007
Decided on : 29-2-2012
Right of self defence-When a person claims exercise of private self-defence, the onus lies on him to show that there were circumstances and occasions for exercising such a right - Just because one circumstance exists amongst the various factors, which appears to favour the person claiming right of self-defence, does not mean that he gets the right to cause the death of the other person- Even the right of self-defence has to be exercised directly in proportion to the extent of aggression (Para 16)
Criminal Trial-Evidence of Interested witnesses-Admissibility of- There is no bar in law in examining family members, or any other person, as witnesses- When the statement of witnesses, who are relatives, or are parties known to the affected party, is credible, reliable, trustworthy, admissible in accordance with the law and corroborated by other witnesses or documentary evidence of the prosecution, there is no reason for the Court to reject such evidence merely on the ground that the witness was family member or interested witness or person known to the affected party- There can be cases where it would be but inevitable to examine such witnesses, because, as the events occurred, they were the natural or the only eye witness available to give the complete version of the incident (Para 19)
Criminal Trial-Evidence of sole witness-Admissibility of- The Court can convict an accused on the statement of a sole witness, even if he was a relative of the deceased and thus, an interested party-If the statement of sole witness is trustworthy, cogent and corroborated by other evidence produced by the prosecution, oral or documentary, then the Court would not fall in error of law in relying upon the statements of such witness-It is only when the Courts find that the single eye-witness is a wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in toto and no amount of corroboration can cure its defect (Para 26)
Facts of the Case :
A. Accused persons six in number were prosecuted herein in the instant for causing death of deceased by assaulting him with lathis. Trial Court while convicting four accused persons, acquitted two accused persons. Appeal thereagainst was partially accepted by High Court acquitting accused persons of offence under Section 323 r/w Section 34 of ‘IPC’ while affirming imposition of life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34, IPC as awarded by trial court.
B. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
A. Even though accused persons took the plea of self-defence ,it was not a case where the circumstances, even remotely, could be construed to have satisfied the ingredients of self-defence. The mere fact that Investigating Officer had not been produced, or that there was no specific explanation on record as to how R ,one of the accused suffered injuries, would not vitiate the trial or the case of the prosecution in its entirety.
B .Non-examination of any independent witness, in the facts of the present case, was not fatal to the case of prosecution. The Court can convict an accused on the statement of a sole witness, even if he was a relative of the deceased and thus, an interested party. If the statement of sole witness is trustworthy, cogent and corroborated by other evidence produced by the prosecution, oral or documentary, then the Court would not fall in error of law in relying upon the statements of such witness. It is only when the Courts find that the single eye-witness is a wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in toto and no amount of corroboration can cure its defect.
C.FIR itself was lodged by the deceased along with PW3 who transcribed the same at the police station itself. The deceased was seriously injured, but was fully aware of what he was doing and he had no reason to falsely implicate any person. His father and brother had also been injured in the occurrence.
D. It was not a dispute which arose at the spur of the moment. All the accused persons had come prepared, mentally and physically, to assault the deceased and in furtherance to their common intention, had even given a lalkar to kill the deceased. This incident was witnessed by natural witnesses PW2 , as well as PW1 .Prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and had brought home the guilt of accused under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. Appeal was Dismissed
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The burden of proof lies on the party alleging a fact; the prosecution is not always required to examine the Investigating Officer if it can establish its case beyond reasonable doubt through other credible evidence (!) (!) .
When evidence is clear, credible, and distinguishable from falsehood, the absence of explanation for injuries on the accused does not automatically invalidate the prosecution's case (!) (!) .
The non-examination of independent witnesses is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution, especially when the evidence of interested witnesses is trustworthy, reliable, and corroborated (!) (!) .
The statement of a sole witness, even if a relative or interested party, can be sufficient for conviction if the testimony is trustworthy, cogent, and supported by other evidence (!) (!) .
The incident was admitted, and the evidence indicates that the accused came prepared to assault the deceased, with a common intention to cause harm, which supports the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt (!) (!) .
The injuries sustained by the deceased and the medical evidence support the conclusion that the injuries were caused by blunt weapons and were sufficient to cause death (!) (!) .
The accused's plea of self-defense was not substantiated by the circumstances, which did not remotely satisfy the criteria for private self-defense, especially considering the premeditated nature of the assault (!) (!) .
Evidence from interested witnesses, including family members, is admissible if credible, reliable, and corroborated, and their testimony can be relied upon unless found wholly unreliable (!) (!) .
The absence of certain witnesses, such as the Investigating Officer or other material witnesses, does not necessarily weaken the prosecution case if other credible evidence exists (!) .
Evidence of injuries to witnesses and the blood-stained earth collected from the scene support the conclusion that the accused participated in a planned assault (!) (!) .
The evidence demonstrates that the accused had come prepared with a common intention to assault and cause death, which justifies their liability under the applicable legal provisions (!) .
The plea of self-defense requires the accused to prove the existence of circumstances justifying such a defense; mere injuries on the accused do not automatically establish self-defense (!) .
The evidence, including medical reports and eyewitness testimony, supports the finding that the accused caused the injuries leading to death, and their actions were not consistent with self-defense (!) .
The case was not a spontaneous altercation but involved prior planning and preparation to attack, which negates the defense of a sudden fight or spur-of-the-moment dispute (!) .
The law permits reliance on the testimony of interested witnesses if their statements are credible, trustworthy, and corroborated (!) .
The non-examination of certain witnesses, including the injured party or family members, does not necessarily undermine the case if the existing evidence is sufficient and credible (!) .
The injuries sustained by the deceased and witnesses, along with physical evidence like blood-stained earth, establish the occurrence and nature of the assault (!) .
The evidence indicates that the accused acted with a common intention, and their participation in the assault was premeditated and coordinated, making them liable under the relevant legal provisions (!) .
The evidence and circumstances do not support a claim of self-defense; rather, they point to a planned attack by the accused (!) .
The appeal was dismissed based on the comprehensive and credible evidence establishing the guilt of the accused, and the evidence was sufficient to uphold their conviction (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.
JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st March, 2006 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, which had partially accepted the appeal by acquitting the accused persons of the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter, ‘IPC’), but affirmed the imposition of life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC as awarded by the learned trial court vide its judgment dated 6th January, 1982. The trial court had found the four accused Ram Dutt (now dead), Thakur Prasad, Mano Dutt and Ram Narain guilty of an offence under Section 302, read with Section 34, IPC and also offence under Section 323, read with Section 34, IPC and had awarded them life imprisonment for the first offence and a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the second, in default of which, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
2. This is a case where the incident, on 22nd October, 1977, which resulted in the death of Siya Ram, is admitted between the parties. The primary question that falls for determination is, as to which of the parties was the aggressor, besides determining the merits of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. Before noticing the prosecution version, we may notice that in the present case, six accused were charged and tried for an offence under Sections 302 and 323, both read with Section 34 IPC. Learned trial court, vide its judgment dated 6th January, 1982 had acquitted accused Sher Bahadur and Jagdish, while it convicted Ram Dutt, Thakur Prasad, Mano Dutt and Ram Narain for both the afore-stated offences. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, Ram Dutt died and the Court convicted the other accused vide its judgment under appeal.
3. Thakur Prasad had filed a separate appeal challenging the said judgment of the High Court, being SLP (Crl.) No.3929 of 2006 titled Thakur Prasad v. State of U.P. which came to be dismissed by order of this Court dated 18th August, 2006. In other words, the conviction of the accused Thakur Prasad under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC attained finality. However, vide the same order, this Court granted leave to appeal in the case of Mano Dutt and Ram Narain. This is how the present appeal has come up for final hearing before us.
4. The case of the prosecution is that Mano Dutt, Ram Narain and Jagdish are real brothers while Ram Dutt and Thakur Prasad are their cousins. On 22nd October, 1977 during day time, Siya Ram was doing earth filling in front of his sariya (a place of tethering cattle). The four accused, namely, Ram Dutt, Thakur Prasad, Ram Narain and Mano Dutt out of the six named accused had come there and asked Siya Ram not to do earth filling. Siya Ram told them that it was his land and he would not stop the work of land filling. Thereupon, Siya Ram called certain villagers. The matter was discussed with the villagers, all of whom said that the land was that of Siya Ram and he could carry on with land filling on his own land. After deciding this, the villagers went away and Siya Ram resumed the filling of the earth. Accused Ram Dutt, Thakur Prasad, Mano Dutt, Ram Narain, Jagdish and Sher Bahadur, armed with lathis, came there and chased Siya Ram. They said that they would finish Siya Ram. Siya Ram was able to run for a short distance away, whereafter all the accused surrounded him in front of the house of one Fateh Mohmad. Accused Ram Dutt, Thakur Prasad, Mano Dutt and Ram Narain started beating Siya Ram with their lathis. The father of Siya Ram, Nankoo and brother Salik Ram rushed towards Siya Ram to rescue him. Accused Sher Bahadur and Jagdish intercepted them in front of one Chiddan’s door and beat them with their lathis. Siya Ram fell down after getting the lathi blows. Siya Ram raised alarm, but still these accused persons continued to beat him and in the meanwhile, Smt. Sangam Devi, Bhurey and Pradhan came there. The
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
