Back
2010 (7) Supreme 859
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and Anil R. Dave, JJ.
Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli & Ors. — Appellant(s)
versus
State of Gujarat — Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No. 1146 of 2008
with
Criminal Appeal No. 1166 of 2009
Decided on : 20-10-2010
(b) Criminal Trial – Hostile Witness – Evidence of a hostile witness cannot be rejected in toto by treating it as effaced or washed off the record altogether – Same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. (Para 8)
AIR 1976 SC 202; AIR 1977 SC 170; AIR 1979 SC 1848; AIR 1991 SC 1853; AIR 1996 SC 2766; (2002) 7 SCC 543; (2006) 13 SCC 516; AIR 2006 SC 951; AIR 2008 SC 320; (2009) 6 SCC 462 – Relied upon
(c) Criminal Trial – Hostile Witness – Law applicable to the case of hostile witnesses restated. (Para 10)
JT 2010 (9) SC 95 – Relied upon
(d) Criminal Trial – Discovery of weapons of offence – The respective places from where the recoveries were affected were exclusively within the knowledge of the appellants which could not have been affected by the investigating agency in the absence of the disclosure statements made by the appellants – Vital evidence for conviction. (Para 18)
(1996) 10 SCC 480 – Relied upon
(e) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 3 – Circumstantial evidence – A false plea taken by an accused in a case of circumstantial evidence is an additional link in the chain of circumstances. (Para 21)
(1984) 4 SCC 116; (1996) 10 SCC 480 – Relied upon
(f) Criminal Trial – It would be an incriminating circumstance if the blood on the weapon was found to be of human origin. (Para 22)
(1999) 9 SCC 581 – Relied upon
(g) Criminal Trial – Evidence of Public Servants – Prima facie, public servants must be presumed to act honestly and conscientiously – Their evidence has to be assessed on its intrinsic worth and cannot be discarded merely on the ground that being public servants they are interested in the success of their case – If the evidence of investigating officer is convincing, it cannot be discarded simply because the seizure witness did not support it. (Para 23)
(1978) 4 SCC 65; (1988) 4 SCC 302; (1978) 4 SCC 435; (2001) 9 SCC 362; (2004) 10 SCC 657 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
1. When Prakashbhai Raveshia, (Chairman of Morbi Nagrik Bank, Morbi), the deceased, accompanied with Ashokbhai Laljibhai Kathrani, Director in the aforesaid Bank came out of the Bank, Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli the appellant approached the deceased and engaged him in conversation and exhorted the other appellants to attack the deceased. On such exhortation, A2-A4 attacked the deceased with knives.
2. The trial court convicted all the accused as charged but acquitted accused No.8 for the offences punishable under Section 312 IPC for harbouring the accused.
3. High affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Court agrees with the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court and approved by the High Court.
2. The acquittal of accused Nos. 5 to 7 does not in any manner wash away the case against the appellants which has been convincingly established on the basis of circumstances.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
P. Sathasivam, J.
1) These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment and final order dated 25.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1422 of 2005 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants confirming the order dated 23.08.2004 passed by the trial Court convicting them under Section 302 of the India Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) read with Section 34 IPC and also under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act awarding each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for one year for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 and also awarded RI for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, RI for one month for the offence under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
2) “The case of the prosecution” as unfolded during the course of investigation was:
a) On 16.09.1999, at about 1715 hrs., Prakashbhai Raveshia, (Chairman of Morbi Nagrik Bank, Morbi), the deceased, accompanied with Ashokbhai Laljibhai Kathrani PW 106, Director in the aforesaid Bank came out of the Bank. It is the case of the prosecution that immediately after coming out of the Bank, Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli - appellant herein approached the deceased and asked him about the loan facility and the manner in which the loan application form was to be filled. During the course of investigation, it was further revealed that immediately thereafter, Ramesbhai Mohanbhai Koli (A1), appellant No. 1 herein, exhorted the other appellants (A2-A4) to attack the deceased. On such exhortation, A2-A4 attacked the deceased with knives and later on A1 joined them. During the investigation, it was further stated by the witnesses that, after the attack, two of the accused ran away on a motorcycle from the place of occurrence. It is important to mention here that in addition to PW- 106, the aforesaid incident was witnessed by as many as 8 witnesses, some of whom were natural witnesses being tea or pan vendor present at the place of occurrence. It was further revealed that original Accused Nos. 5-7 had conspired to eliminate Prakashbhai Raveshia and in furtherance of that conspiracy engaged the services of the appellants herein. During the panchnama (Exh.384) of the place of occurrence amongst other articles, a blood stained loan application form bearing the name and address of the appellant Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli (A1) was seized by the police. As regards the injuries on the person of the deceased, the post-mortem report (Exh. 206) revealed that the deceased suffered 18 injuries out of which 17 were incised wounds. It may be mentioned here that large number of injuries/incised wounds were found on the neck and the chest of the deceased.
(b) During the course of further investigation, after arrest of the appellants herein, all of them made separate disclosure statements showing their willingness to disclose the respective places where they had hidden the knives used in the commission of offence. Pursuant to such disclosures made by the appellants, they led the police to the places where they have concealed the knives used in the commission of offence. The knives recovered at the instance of the appellants Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli (A1), Narottam Prejji Koli (A2) and Pravin @ Dalo Lashubhai Koli (A4) were stained with blood. Blood stained clothes worn by Pravin @ Dalo Lashubhai Koli (A4) at the time of incident were also got recovered. The police also recovered the blood stained seat of the motorcycle used by two of the accused to run away from the place of occurrence.
c) The aforesaid articles, namely, the loan application form, the knives, blood stained clothes of the appellant Pravin @ Dalo Lashubhai Koli (A4) and the blood stained seat of the motorcycle were sent for forensic examination. The FSL and serological report (Exh 250) opined that the blood stains on the aforesaid articles were of group ‘O’. The blood gr
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
