2012 (3) Supreme 113
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(A.K. Patnaik & Swatanter Kumar, JJ.)
State of Haryana — Appellants
versus
Shakuntla Ors. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 658 of 2008 with Criminal Appeal No. 1005 of 2008 and Criminal Appeal No. 1707 of 2008
Decided on 19-04-2012
(2012) 4 SCC 79 – Relied upon
(2011) 7 SCC 295; JT (2011) 8 SC 55; (2002) 2 SCC 426 – Distinguished
(b) Criminal Trial – Interested witness – Merely being a relative of deceased a witness does not become interested witness. (Para 20)
(2009) 13 SCC 790; (2010) 6 SCC 673 – Relied upon
(c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 149 – Nine persons assembling – One of them exhorting the others to finish the deceased – Members of the assembly continuing to assault the victims even after they fell down – Courts below rightly applied section 149. (Para 30)
(2011) 9 SCC 257 – Relied upon
1993 Supp. (2) SCC 356 – Distinguished
(d) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 11 – Plea of alibi – Concurrent findings of courts below cannot be disturbed. (Para 36)
(2002) 1 SCC 351 – Distinguished impliedly
(e) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378 – General principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal restated – Prosecution not showing any exception to said principles – Impugned judgments not perverse – No interference called for. (Paras 41 and 43)
(2007) 7 SCC 625; (2007) 4 SCC 415; (2003) 1 SCC 1 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Applicability of section 149, IPC; reliance on related witnesses; plea of alibi; and benefit of doubt etc. are the issues for consideration in this appeal.
Finding of the Court:
No case is made out for interference by Supreme Court.
JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.- We may notice the case of the prosecution in brief at the very outset of this judgment. On 3rd July, 1994, Manohar Lal (deceased) who had retired from service as Subedar in the Indian Army, had taken his wife, Smt. Sushila (deceased) to Delhi for her treatment as she was complaining of pain in the chest. Naresh Kumar, PW-4 is the eldest son of Manohar Lal. All were residents of Village Nandrampurbas, Haryana.
2. In the evening, when PW-4 was putting earth on a ditch in front of his house, accused Matadin and Rajender came there and abused and beat him. However, PW-4 did not lodge any police report in this regard. On 5th July, 1994, Manohar Lal and his wife Sushila returned from Delhi at about 9 AM. At that time PW-4, his sister Rajesh, PW-5 and their brother Suresh were sitting at the gate of their house. When Manohar Lal and Sushila were enquiring about the incident that had taken place on 3rd July, 1994, all the nine accused, namely, Matadin, Rajender, Krishan, Bhim Singh, Shakuntla, Premwati, Kailash, Sarjeeta and Laxmi came there armed with lathis and other deadly weapons. Laxmi opened the assault by giving an iron rod blow which hit Sushila at her leg. Thereafter, Matadin gave a Jaily blow on the head of Manohar Lal but Manohar Lal took it at his hand. To save themselves, Manohar Lal and Sushila started running towards the house of Guwarias but the accused chased them. Then Krishan gave a Jaily blow which hit Manohar Lal at his back as a result of which Manohar Lal fell down. Bhim Singh gave a Kasola blow at his head and then they all started beating Manohar Lal. Thereafter, all the accused opened attack on Sushila and beat her mercilessly. Ultimately, considering both of them dead, all the accused persons ran away towards village Silarpur. When the children of Manohar Lal went near their parents, they found that Manohar Lal had died on the spot, but Sushila was still alive and unconscious. Krishan, son of Richpal, took Sushila to the Civil Hospital, Rewari in a Maruti Van, but she was declared brought dead by the doctors there.
3. PW-4 who had left for the Police Station, Dharuhera, leaving behind PW-5 and his younger brother near the body of Manohar Lal. On the way near village Alawarpur, he met Subey Singh, Sub-Inspector who recorded the statement of PW-4 vide Ext. PH. After making endorsement to the Police Station, an FIR vide Exh. PH/1, was registered in the Police Station, Dharuhera. The process of criminal law was set into motion against the accused persons on the basis of the statement, Ext. PH.
4. It has come on record that the deceased Manohar Lal had, after retirement, been working in the Indian Army in the Defence Supply Corps (DSC) at Defence Colony, Delhi. As afore-noted, he had taken his wife for medical treatment to Delhi. In the evening, the accused Matadin and Rajender had beaten up PW-4. Moreover, in the year 1986 also, Rajender and Matadin had beaten up Manohar Lal and his wife Sushila, for which they were also facing criminal trial.
5. In furtherance to registration of the above-mentioned FIR, on 10th July, 1994, all the accused were produced before the Investigating Officer and were arrested. Upon interrogation, they made disclosure statements on the basis of which weapons of offence were recovered. Then, the investigation was handed over to Udai Singh, SHO (PW-17), who after completion of investigation submitted the report to the court of competent jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the CrPC’). Having been committed to the Court of Sessions, the accused were charged with the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) and Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. They were tried in accordance with law and, finally, vide judgment of the Trial Court dated 22nd August, 1997, all the nine accused we
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.