2007 Supreme(MP) 255

2007(3) JLJ 293
(SUPREME COURT)
S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ.
Swami Prasad v. State of M.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 731 of 2000: against the judgment of
M.P. High Court, Bench at Jabalpur, passed in
Criminal Appeal No.762 of 1988; Decided on 8.3.2007.

Headnote:(1) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S.154 -- evidence of hostile witnesses -- may be considered.

       It is true that three prosecution witnesses were declared hostile, but the same by itself, in our considered opinion, would not lead to the conclusion that the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment. It is well settled that a Court in a given situation even may rely on the statements of the witnesses, who had been permitted to be cross-examined by the prosecution.

       It may be true that the evidence of PW6 had not been believed in its entirety by the learned trial Judge. Her evidence has, however, been believed at least in part by the High Court. The reason for not believing her evidence is said to be that in her statement under section 161 CrPC before the Investigating Officer, she had not stated to have seen the appellant assaulting the deceased with an axe. Her statement, however, before the police as also before the trial Court should be considered in its entirety. It is not in dispute that at least she had heard a cry that Rameshwar had been killed by the appellant. She ran to the place of occurrence. She even before going to the place of occurrence asked her brother not to come there. PW 4 in his evidence supported that part of the testimony of PW6. [Paras 15 & 16

       (2) Penal Code, 1860 -- S.302 -- fact that appellant accused alone has committed murder sufficiently proved -- rightly convicted.

       Appellant, in the meanwhile, went towards the well with an axe in his hand. While the deceased was taking bath, he allegedly assaulted him by giving two or three blows with his axe on his neck saying that "he had done the division in two parts". [Para 4

       Held: From the evidence on record, apart from PW6, who is an eye-witness, in our opinion, the following facts must be held to have been sufficiently proved:

       (1) Appellant had demanded 1/2 share in the property from his father at about 10 a.m. on 8.11.1986; and having been told that the property would be divided equally amongst the three sons, he became angry;

       (2) PW4 while in his house heard a cry that Rameshwar had been killed by the appellant;

       (3) Appellant was seen at the place of occurrence with an axe. He went to the police station with the axe and blood-stained clothes.

       Although he did not make any categorical statement that he had killed the deceased, his statement to the effect that Rameshwar had been killed with the axe which he had been holding is sufficiently indicative of the fact that it was he who had killed the deceased. His statement is to be read reasonably and in its entirety. So read, no other meaning can be attributed thereto. AIR 2007 SC 28 distinguished. JT 2007(3) SC 316 relied on. Judgment of High Court affirmed. [Paras 24 & 25

       ¼1½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1908 && /kkjk 154 && i{knzksgh lk{kh dk lk{; && fopkj fd;k tkuk pkfg,A

        ;g lR; gS fd rhu vfHk;kstu lk{khx.k i{knzksgh ?kksf"kr fd, x, Fks] fdarq gekjh lqfopkfjr jk; esa dsoy blh ls ;g fu"d"kZ ugha fudkyk tk ldrk fd vk{ksfir fu.kZ; ikfjr djus esa mPp U;k;ky; us dksbZ xyrh dh gSA ;g lqLFkkfir gS fd fdlh fofufnZ"V vofLFkfr esa U;k;ky; mu lkf{k;ksa dk dFkuksa dk Hkh voyac ys ldrk gS ftudh vfHk;kstu }kjk izfrijh{kk vuqKkr dh xbZ gSA

        ;g lR; gks ldrk gS fd fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us v lk 6 ds lexz lk{; ij fo‘okl ugha fd;k gSA rFkkfi] mPp U;k;ky; us mlds lk{; ij de&ls&de Hkkxr% rks fo‘okl fd;k gSA mlds lk{; ij fo‘okl ugha fd, tkus dk dkj.k ;g crk;k x;k gS fd na-iza-la- dh /kkjk 161 ds v/khu vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh us le{k vius dFku esa mlus ;g ugha dgk fd mlus e`rd ij dqYgkM+h ls vkdze.k djrs gq, vihykFkhZ dks ns[kk gSA rFkkfi] iqfyl ds le{k vkSj U;k;ky; ds le{k Hkh mlds lexzrk ls fopkj fd;k tkuk gksxkA ;g fooknxr ugha gS fd de&ls&de mlus ;g iqdkj lquh Fkh fd jkes‘oj dh vihykFkhZ }kjk gR;k dh xbZ FkhA og ?kVuk LFky dh vksj nkSM+hA mlus ?kVuk LFky dh vksj tkus ls iwoZ vius HkkbZ ls ogk¡ ugha vkus ds fy, dgkA vius lk{; esa v lk 4 us v lk 6 ds ifjlk{; dk leFkZu fd;k gSA ¿ iSjk 15 ,oa 16À

       ¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 302 && ;g rF; fd vihykFkhZ vfHk;qDr us gh gR;k dkfjr dh] i;kZIr :i ls lkfcr && Bhd&gh fl)nks"k Bgjk;k x;kA

        vihykFkhZ] bl chp] vius gkFk esa dqYgkM+h fy, dq, dh vksj x;kA e`rd Luku dj jgk Fkk] vfHkdfFkr :i ls mlus viuh dqYgkM+h ls mldh xnZu ij nks ;k rhu izgkj dj ds ;g dgrs gq, ml geyk fd;k fd Þmlus nks Hkkx esa foHkktu dj fn;kß ¿ iSjk 4À

        vfHkfu/kkZfjr % gekjh jk; esa] vfHkys[kxr lk{; ls] v lk 6 ds vfrfjDr tks izR;{kn‘khZ lk{kh gS] fuEufyf[kr rF; Hkh i;kZIr :i ls lkfcr vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd, gh tkuk pkfg, %

       1- vihykFkhZ us 8-11-1986 dks iwokZg~u yxHkx 10 cts vius firk ls laifÙk esa 1@2 va‘k dh ek¡x dh Fkh% vkSj ;g dgs tkus ij fd laifÙk rhuksa HkkbZ;ksa ds e/; cjkcj&cjkcj foHkkftr gksxh] og dqfir gks x;k%

       2- v lk 4 us tc og vius ?kj esa Fkh] iqdkj lquh fd jkes‘oj dh vihykFkhZ }kjk gR;k dj nh xbZ gS (

       3- vihykFkhZ ?kVuk LFky ij dqYgkM+h ds lkFk ns[kk x;k FkkA og iqfyl Fkkuk dqYgkM+h jDr&jaftr oL=ksa ds lkFk fd;k x;k FkkA

       ;|fi mlus dksbZ lqLi"V dFku ugha fd;k fd e`rd dh gR;k mlus dh gS] mlds bl vk‘k; ds dFku ls jkes‘oj dh dqYgkM+h ls gR;k dj nh xbZ gS] ;g rF; i;kZIrr% minf‘kZr gksrk gS fd mlds gks e`rd dh gR;k dhA mlds dFku dk ikB ;qfDr;qDrr% vkSj mlds lexz :i ls fd;k tkuk pkfg,A bl izdkj ikB fd, tkus ij mldk nwljk vkSj dksbZ vFkZ ugha fd;k tk ldrkA , vkb vkj 2007 ,l lh 28 izHksfnrA ts Vh 2007¼3½ ,l lh 316 voyafcrA mPp U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; vfHkiq"VA ¿ iSjk 24 ,oa 25À