Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. AHMADI, V. RAMASWAMI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.
Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari, Appellant
Versus
State of M.P., Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No.413 of 1982
Decided on 16-7-1991.
Advocates appeared
Mr. U. R. Lalit and Mr. Prithvi Raj (for the State of M.P.); Sr. Advocates Mr. S.S. Khanduja, Mr. J.P. Dubey, Mr. Y.P. Dhingra, Mr. B.K. Satija, Mr. Uma Nath Singh (for the State of M.P.); Mr. S. Karnail and Mr. S.K. Gambir, Advocates with them, for the appearing parties.
(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302/ 34 - Chance witness - PW 1 an eye witness explained his presence that he had gone to the market to purchase vegetables - Place of occurrence in the vicinity of Mohalla where witness was residing his presence can not be considered unnatural - Witness in cross examination which commenced after one month of examination-in-chief deposing that he saw appellant only from his back - Material on record to show that it was his attempt to wringgle out of what he had stated in chief evidence of such totally independent witness is acceptable regarding time, place & manner of the incident as well as the identity of accused. (Para 6)
(iii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 174 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302/34 - Evidence of eye witnesses can not be rejected only on the ground that their names did not figure in the inquest report. (Para 7)
(iv) Evidence Act - Section 27 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302/34 - Recovery of weapons of assault at the instance of accused persons in presence of panch witnesses - Same panch witnesses were witness to all three discovery panchnamas as well panchnama regarding the attachment of clothes worn by the appellant and his companions. Mere fact that panch witness was a witness to all the panchnamas is by itself not sufficient to discard his evidence - Panch witness known to the family of deceased being a neighbour not a ground to over look his evidence but if should received strict scruting. (Para 8)
(v) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302/ 34 -Human blood found on the weapon of assault as well on the pant of appellant but the report of serologist could not determine the blood group - Presence of human blood on the weapon and the pant of appellant lends corroboration to the testimony of eye witnesses who deposed that he had seen appellant inflicting knife blow on the deceased in such a circumstance absence of determination of blood group is of no consequence. (Para 8)
(vi) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 3021 34 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 386(1)(b) - Powers of the appellate Court to review the entire evidence to arrive at its own conclusion are as wide as that of the trial court - Where on reappreciation of the evidence the appellate court comes to conclusion that the appellant and the acquitted accused were both involved in the commission of crime, the appellate court can record conviction with the aid of section 34 notwithstanding the acquittal of the co-accused. (Para 9 & 10)
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The appellate court can record a conviction under section 34 of the Indian Penal Code even if some accused persons are acquitted, provided it finds that both the appellant and the acquitted accused were involved in the commission of the crime, upon re-appreciation of evidence (!) (!) .
The evidence of witnesses declared hostile can still be partially relied upon if parts of their testimony are otherwise acceptable, particularly regarding the occurrence and involvement of accused persons (!) (!) .
The presence of an independent witness at the scene, who testifies to the incident, can be considered credible if the circumstances and locality support his presence, even if his testimony is challenged on cross-examination (!) (!) .
Evidence of discovery of weapons and blood-stained articles, even if the blood group cannot be conclusively determined, can corroborate eyewitness testimony indicating the accused's involvement in the assault (!) (!) .
The fact that the blood stains on weapons and clothing are human blood, even without blood group identification, can be significant circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime (!) (!) .
The conviction for murder can be sustained even if direct medical evidence does not conclusively establish that the accused caused the fatal injury, especially if the evidence suggests multiple participants and the accused’s involvement in the assault (!) (!) .
The law permits the appellate court to re-evaluate evidence and arrive at its own findings, independent of the trial court’s conclusions, including the application of section 34 or 149 of the IPC, in cases where multiple persons participated in the crime (!) (!) .
The absence of the accused’s name in certain reports (such as inquest reports) does not necessarily diminish the credibility of eyewitness testimony or circumstantial evidence, as the purpose of such reports is limited to noting physical condition and injuries (!) .
The fact that witnesses may change their testimony over time or under cross-examination does not automatically invalidate their initial statements if their overall account remains credible and consistent with other evidence (!) (!) .
The conviction can be upheld based on circumstantial evidence, such as the presence of blood on weapons and clothing, the discovery of weapons at the accused’s premises, and eyewitness accounts, even if direct evidence linking the accused to the fatal injury is not conclusive (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you require a detailed analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.
JUDGMENT
AHMADI, J.:— This appeal by special leave is preferred by the appellant Khujji alias Surender Tiwari who has been convicted by both the courts below under S. 302, IPC, for the murder of one Gulab. The facts leading to this appeal, briefly stated, are that on the evening of May 20, 1978 the deceased Gulab and his companion PW 4 Ramesh Chander hired a Rickshaw to go to the dispensary of Dr. Mukherjee. PW 3 Kishan Lal pulled the Rickshaw and while he was passing through Suji Mohalla near Panchsheel Talkies the appellant and his companions surrounded the Rickshaw and launched an attack on the deceased and his companion. PW4 was the first to receive an injury by a cycle chain. Sensing trouble both Gulab and PW 4 jumped out of the Rickshaw and ran in different ,directions. Gulab ran towards Suji Mohalla whereas PW 4 ran towards Panchsheel Talkies. They were chased by the assaillants who formed themselves into two groups. PW4 was fortunate enough to escape with not too serious an injury but his companion Gulab received stab wounds to which he succumbed on the spot. The evidence of PW 12 Dr. Nagpal shows that the deceased had received three injuries, namely, (i) a penetrating stab wound with a second injury on the intercostal space on right side rib of the size of 3 cms x 5 cms x 1 cm, (ii) a piercing stab wound 8 cms below the scapular bone and 8 cms outside the vertibral column of the size of 2.5 cms x 1.5 cms. x 3 cms., and (iii) an incised wound on the frontal auxiliary line 2.5 cms x 1.5 cms x 2 cms deep on the left hipocardium region. This witness, who performed the postmortem, deposed that injury No. 1 which had injured the heart was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He further stated that all the three injuries were collectively sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The three articles, namely, the knife, the chhuri and the chhura which were attached in the course of investigation were shown to this witness and he stated that the three injuries were possible by the aforesaid articles. It is clear from this evidence that Gulab died a homicidal death.
2. To bring home the guilt against the appellant the prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of three eye-witnesses, namely, PW 1 Komal Chand (an on-looker), PW 3 Kishan Lal (the Rickshaw Puller) and PW 4 Ramesh (the companion of the deceased) besides the find of human blood on the weapon discovered at the instance of the appellant and on the Pant which he was wearing at the time of his arrest.
3. The First Information Report, Exh. P-3, was lodged by PW 4 Ramesh immediately after the incident and the same was recorded by the Investigating Officer PW 13 Ramjisingh at about 9.15 p.m. In the said first information report PW4 gave the details regarding the incident and furnished the names of all the six assailants. Soon after the first information report was lodged the Investigating Officer visited the scene of occurrence and drew up the Panchnama on the basis of which a sketch plan Exh.P-20A was prepared in due course. The appellant and some of his companions could not be traced till May 22, 1978. After they were traced, they were interrogated and on their expressing willingness to discover the weapons used in the commission of the crime, the Investigating Officer summoned two witnesses, namely, PW 5 Panna Lal and Rajinder to act as Panch witnesses. The prosecution case is that in the presence of these witnesses the appellant and his companions made certain confessional statements under S. 27 of Evidence Act which led to the discovery of the weapons used in the commission of the crime. According to the prosecution the appellant Khujji discovered a chhura (knife) from his garage and the same was attached under the Panchnama Exh.P-9. Since this weapon had blood-like stains, it was sent to the Chemical Analyser and Serologist for examination and report. The report indicates that it was stained with human blood but the blood group coul
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
