Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Swatanter Kumar & Madan B. Lokur, JJ.
Jeewan & Ors.
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand
Criminal Appeal No. 1275 of 2009, Criminal Appeal No. 1392 of 2001 (Old No. 300 of 1994
Decided On : 13 December, 2012
Indian Penal Code - Section 302 – Attack - Marriage ceremony - Immediately taken to hospital in where he succumbed to his injuries - At about lodged First Information Report against all three accused persons - First Information Report complainant stated that motive for commission of crime by accused was previous enmity between parties - According to him during festival accused persons along with were playing cards and gambling when they picked up quarrel and there was scuffle between parties - Scuffle did not aggravate into any serious situation because of intervention by head-man of village - He got matter compromised three accused continued to enmity and even threatened to see him later – Held, Exaggerated devotion to rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and thereby destroy social defence - Justice cannot be made sterile on plea that is better to let a hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting the guilty escape is not doing justice according to law - Prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by accused - Reasonable doubt is not an imaginary trivial or merely possible doubt but fair doubt based upon reason and common sense - It grow out of evidence in case - Proved perfectly it is argued that it is artificial case has some inevitable flaws because human beings are prone to err argued that it is too imperfect - One wonders whether in meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate rare innocent from being punished many guilty persons must be allowed to escape - Proof beyond reasonable doubt is guideline not a fetish Vague hunches cannot take place of judicial evaluation – Appeal dismissed
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves the conviction of three accused persons for the murder of Devendra Lal, with the evidence establishing their participation through eyewitness testimony and medical reports (!) (!) .
The eyewitnesses, PW1, PW2, and PW3, provided consistent accounts of the incident, including the presence of the accused with weapons and their actions during the attack. Their testimonies were deemed credible and supported by physical evidence such as the weapons recovered and medical findings (!) (!) (!) .
Discrepancies or minor contradictions in the witnesses' statements, such as differences in the sequence of events or the identification of the accused, were considered immaterial and did not undermine the overall reliability of the evidence. The court emphasized that such discrepancies are common in cases involving witnesses recounting events after a passage of time and do not necessarily affect the core of the prosecution's case (!) (!) .
The medical evidence corroborated the eyewitness accounts, revealing multiple stab wounds inflicted on the deceased, which caused his death. The injuries and their nature supported the conclusion that the accused had participated with a common intention in the act of murder (!) (!) .
The delay in lodging the FIR was explained by the circumstances, notably that the complainant first prioritized taking the injured to the hospital and only later reported the incident to the police. The court held that such delay, when properly explained, does not necessarily weaken the prosecution's case (!) (!) .
The court underscored the importance of evaluating the entire evidence collectively rather than isolating discrepancies or procedural lapses. Minor lapses or omissions in investigation or reports were deemed not material enough to cast doubt on the evidence or to warrant acquittal (!) (!) .
The appellate courts' findings, including the rejection of the appellant's contentions regarding procedural fairness and evidentiary discrepancies, were upheld. The courts reaffirmed that the evidence was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the case was properly tried and decided according to law (!) (!) .
Overall, the court concluded that the prosecution had successfully proved the involvement of the accused in the crime, and the appeal was dismissed accordingly (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or assistance with a specific aspect of this case.
JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital dated 14th October, 2008 vide which the High Court confirmed the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused against their conviction and order of sentence.
2. The conviction of the accused is based upon the version of the prosecution that on 12th March, 1991 at about 10 p.m., complainant Bhupal Chandra, who later came to be examined as PW1, along with his brother Devendra Lal after attending the marriage ceremony of one Pooran Chandra in Village Dhapla within the limits of Police Station Kaladhungi, District Nainital, were returning home. On their way, they found the accused Jeewan Ram, Dalip and Kamal, all residents of their village, standing there. Jeewan was carrying a knife while Kamal and Dalip were armed with sticks (danda). Accused Kamal and Dalip caught hold of Devendra while Jeewan struck several blows with knife on his chest and abdomen. PW1 was carrying torch and saw the occurrence in that light. Two more persons, Rajendra Singh, PW2 and Prem Ram, PW3, who after attending the marriage were taking rest in the nearby house of Shyam Lal, upon hearing the alarm raised by Devendra Lal, reached the place of occurrence. In the light of the torches they were carrying, they witnessed the accused committing the crime. Upon hearing the alarm raised by Devendra, these witnesses saw the accused persons running away, however, they did not chase them out of fear.
3. Devendra Lal, was immediately taken to a hospital in Haldwani where he succumbed to his injuries. At about 8.45 a.m., on 13th March, 1991 Bhupal Chandra, PW1, lodged the First Information Report (for short, the 'FIR') against the three accused persons at Police Station Kaladhungi and a crime case No. 68 of 1991 was accordingly registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the 'IPC') against all the three accused persons. In the First Information Report, Ext. A1, the complainant stated that the motive for commission of crime by the accused was previous enmity between the parties. According to him, during Deepawali festival, the accused persons along with Devendra Lal were playing cards and gambling, when they picked up a quarrel and there was a scuffle between the parties. The scuffle did not aggravate into any serious situation because of intervention by Sabhapati, the head-man of the village. Though, he got the matter compromised, the three accused continued to harbour enmity and even threatened Devendra Lal to see him later.
4. After Devendra Lal succumbed to his injuries in the hospital, a report was sent to the police. Sub Inspector Daya Ram Singh, PW8 came to the civil hospital, Haldwani, took up the charge of the dead body and prepared the inquest report, Ext. A6, whereafter the body was handed over to Dr. T.C. Pant, PW7 with a request to perform post-mortem upon the body of the deceased. The doctor performed the post-mortem and prepared a report, Ext. A7, in which he noticed the injuries upon the body of the deceased as well as the cause of death, which reads as under:
'i) P.W. 1.2 cm X cm on front of sterum, 7 cm medial left nipple. On opening the wound it is cavity deep piercing the sterum.
ii) P.W. 8 cm X 3 cm X cavity deep, on right side of chest, 3 cms towards right nipple. On opening the wond right lobe of liver is cut.
iii) P.W. 15 cm X 5 cm X cavity deep. Medial end of wound touching 6th thoracic spine extending to right side of back of chest. Right lung beneath the injury is cut.
iv) Punctured wound 4 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep, 3 cm above from the left ant sup iliac spine on left lat side of abdomen. Loops of intestine coming out.
v) P.W. 3 cm X 1 cm X cavity deep about 3 cm from left nipple underneath the injury. Left lung is cut.
vi) I.W. 4 cm X 2 cm X muscle deep on medial side of right knee about 2 cm from upper border of patella.
vii) I.W. 3 cm X 1 cm X muscle deep, about 2 cm lat
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
