1. Murder and assault — Attack with axe and knives on motorcycle — Conviction under Sections 302, 324, 34 IPC and Section 135 Bombay Police Act. (Para 4 , 6 )
Back
Next 
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
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Sumita Ray, Nachiketa Joshi, Anirudh Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Aniruddha P. Mayee, Advocate
For the Appellant(s) :Sumita Ray, Nachiketa Joshi, Anirudh Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Aniruddha P. Mayee, Advocate
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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Reliability of injured witnesses — Identification in darkness — Consistency of medical evidence — Materiality of contradictions in testimony — Validity of motive. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 )
3. Injured witnesses' testimony is trustworthy — Identification supported by lighting and local familiarity — Medical evidence corroborates ocular testimony — Minor contradictions are immaterial. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
4. Testimony of injured witnesses carries special weight; only contradictions in material particulars, not minor discrepancies, can discredit such testimony. (Para 19 , 20 )
5. Appeals dismissed — Concurrent findings of conviction and sentence upheld. (Para 21 , 22 )
6. What is the evidentiary value of the testimony of an injured witness in criminal trials?
The testimony of an injured witness has its own efficacy and relevancy, as injuries indicate presence at the scene. Such evidence is generally considered reliable and requires convincing evidence to be discredited. (Para 19 )
7. Do minor contradictions or discrepancies in a witness's deposition necessarily render their testimony unreliable?
No. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, or embellishments on trivial matters that do not affect the core of the prosecution's case should not be grounds to reject evidence in its entirety. (Para 19 )
8. How is the identification of accused persons evaluated when an incident occurs in darkness?
Identification can be supported by available light sources, such as vehicle headlights or local lamps, and the existing familiarity between the witnesses and the accused, such as residing in the same village. (Para 17 , 18 )
JUDGMENT :
R. Subhash Reddy, J.
1. Leave granted in S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3227 of 2015.
2. All these criminal appeals are filed against the common judgment dated 09.05.2014 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal Nos.405 of 2010 and 459 of 2010, as such, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
3. Criminal Appeal No.290 of 2018 is filed by accused no.1 - Vajashibhai Ramshibhai Kachhot; Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3227 of 2015 is filed by accused no.2 - Mulubhai Markhibhai Nandaniya; and Criminal Appeal No.216 of 2015 is filed by accused no.3 - Kalabhai Hamirbhai Kachhot. For the sake of convenience, the appellants in the above appeals shall be referred to as accused nos.1 to 3 hereafter.
4. The aforesaid appellants were the accused in FIR no.I215/2006 dated 11.11.2006 on the file of Keshod Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 326, 324 and 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act , in which chargesheet was filed on 07.02.2007 in the court of First Class Magistrate, Keshod. As much as the offences were triable by Sessions Court, the case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh and the accused were tried for the aforesaid offences in Sessions Case No.14 of 2007. All the 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. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the original accused nos.2 and 3 of the charges under Sections 326 and 324 read with 34, IPC. Against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Court, accused nos.1 and 3 filed Criminal Appeal No.459 of 2010 and accused no.2 filed Criminal Appeal No.405 of 2010 before the High Court.
5. The 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 the accused as undertrial prisoners be set off against the sentence.
6. On 10.11.2006, one Rajshibhai Maldebhai Karangiya, resident of Bamnasa Ghed, Taluka Keshod, gave complaint before the Sub-inspector ‘B’ Division, Junagadh stating that he lives at Bamn
