2021 Supreme(SC) 233

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY,
KALABHAI HAMIRBHAI KACHHOT - APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT - RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.453 OF 2021, 290 OF 2018, 216 OF 2015 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3227 of 2015]
Decided on : 28-04-2021

IMPORTANT POINT
Minor omissions, by itself, is no ground to discredit testimony of key witnesses who were examined on behalf of prosecution, whose say is consistent, natural and trustworthy.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 326, 324 and 34 – Bombay Police Act, 1956 – Section 135 – Murder and hurt – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – Testimony of PWs who were with deceased on day of occurrence and who were travelling on same motorcycle, is quite natural and trustworthy – Identification of accused is well supported by evidence on record – If entire evidence of all witnesses is examined with reference to medical and other evidence on record, prosecution has proved guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt – All accused have committed crime with a common intention – Contradictions which are sought to be projected are minor contradictions which cannot be basis to discard their evidence – Prosecution has proved case against all appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt – Omissions like not seizing motorcycle and also not seizing gold chain of one of victims, by itself, is no ground to discredit testimony of key witnesses who were examined on behalf of prosecution, whose say is consistent, natural and trustworthy – There was animosity between them which is motive for crime – As such, prosecution has established, beyond reasonable doubt, that all accused have committed offence with a common intention and participated in committing crime – Trial court as well as High Court have not committed any error in law or on facts, as such, same are required to be upheld by this Court – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22)

Facts of the case:

All accused were convicted for the offences under Section 302 read with 34, IPC and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. Accused no.1 –Vajashibhai Ramshibhai Kachhot – was found guilty for offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34, IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/and in default, to undergo further S.I. for 12 months. He was also found guilty for offence punishable under Section 324, IPC and was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3000/- and in default, to undergo further S.I. for six months. He was also found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act and was sentenced to undergo S.I. for four months and to pay fine of Rs.100- and in default, to undergo further S.I. for ten days. Accused no.2 – Mulubhai Markhibhai Nandaniya – was found guilty for offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34, IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.10000/- and in default, to further undergo S.I. for 12 months. He was also found guilty for offence punishable under Section 135(1) of Bombay Police Act and was sentenced to undergo S.I. for four months and to pay fine of Rs.100/and in default, to further undergo S.I. for ten days. Accused no.3 – Kalabhai Hamirbhai Kachhot – was found guilty for offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34, IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.10000/- and in default, to further undergo S.I. for 12 months. He was also found guilty for offence punishable under Section 135(1) of Bombay Police Act and was sentenced to undergo S.I. for four months and to pay fine of Rs.100/- and in default, to further undergo S.I. for 10 days. Sessions Judge has acquitted the original accused nos.2 and 3 of charges under Sections 326 and 324 read with 34, IPC. High Court, by the impugned common judgment, while confirming the conviction, has partly allowed the appeals and ordered that all the sentences imposed against the accused shall run concurrently and, by extending the benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, also ordered that the period of detention of accused as undertrial prisoners be set off against the sentence.

Findings of Court:

Prosecution has established, beyond reasonable doubt, that all the accused have committed the offence with a common intention and participated in committing crime. The trial court as well as High Court has not committed any error in law or on facts, as such, the same are required to be upheld by this Court.

Result : Appeals dismissed.