Penal Code, 1860:
Alteration of conviction from u/s. 302/34 to s. 304 Part I/34 – There was a verbal duel followed by scuffle between the parties – Prosecution alleged that accused persons assaulted the other party, which also led to a homicidal death – Trial court convicted all the four accused u/s 302/34 IPC – High Court held that the assault was made on spur of the moment without premeditation and that both sides had suffered injuries and altered conviction u/s.304 Part I – Two accused were acquitted as their presence was found doubtful – On appeal, held: Parties were related to each other and there was a land dispute between them – The verbal duel was followed by a scuffle is a concurrent finding of fact by two Courts – Accused persons had also lodged an FIR with regard to the same occurrence, which was not investigated – Police failed to explain why the said FIR was not investigated – Further, accused were also admitted in the hospital for treatment with regard to injuries sustained in the same occurrence but the injury report was not brought on record – The facts were suppressed by the prosecution, which creates sufficient doubts and prosecution was unable to answer the same – The benefit of doubt must follow unless the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt – No reason to interfere with the order of the High Court.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. On perusal of materials on record, the relationship between parties and the existence of a land dispute regarding which a civil suit was also pending are undisputed facts. The fact that a verbal duel followed by scuffle took place between the parties culminating in injuries is a concurrent finding of fact by two Courts. The fact that the accused also lodged an F.I.R. with regard to the same occurrence stands established by the evidence of PWs. 19 and 22, the Investigating Officers, who have admitted that the respondents-accused had also lodged BRPS, which was not investigated by them. Similarly, PW 11, the Police Constable, deposed that two of the accused were admitted in the District Hospital and that he was posted on watch duty. The occurrence is of 07.06.2002 and respondents-accused nos. 1 and
2 were discharged on 11.06.2002. Their injury report has not been brought on record by the prosecution and no explanation has been furnished in that regard. [Para 8] [19-A-C]
2. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the allegations beyond all reasonable doubt. In contradistinction to the same, the accused has only to create a doubt about the prosecution case and the probability of its defence. An accused is not required to establish or prove his defence beyond all reasonable doubt, unlike the prosecution. If the accused takes a defence, which is not improbable and appears likely, there is material in support of such defence, the accused is not required to prove anything further. The benefit of doubt must follow unless the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. [Para 9] [19-D-E]
3. The fact that a defence may not have been taken by an accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. again cannot absolve the prosecution from proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt. If there are materials which the prosecution is unable to answer, the weakness in the defence taken cannot become the strength of the prosecution to claim that in the circumstances it was not required to prove anything. [Para 10] [19-F]
4. The fact that an F.I.R. was lodged by the accused with regard to the same occurrence, the failure of the police to explain why it was not investigated, coupled with the admitted fact that the accused were also admitted in the hospital for treatment with regard to injuries sustained in the same occurrence, but the injury report was not brought on record and suppressed by the prosecution, creates sufficient doubts which the prosecution has been unable to answer. [Para 11] [20-A-B]
Sunil Kundu v. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 4 SCC
422 : [2013] 5 SCR 924 – relied on.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Faqirey (2019) 5 SCC 605; Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC
444 : [2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 633 ; State of Rajasthan thr. the Secretary v. Kanhaiya Lal, (2019) 5 SCC 639; Vijay Ramkrishan Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra and another, (2012) 11 SCC 592 ; Raj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 15 SCC 292 : [2009] 11 SCR 49; Dayal Singh and others v. State of Uttaranchal, (2012)
8 SCC 263 : [2012] 10 SCR 157 ; Gajoo v. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 9 SCC 532 : [2012] 7 SCR 1033; Manoj Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 7 SCC 327 : [2018] 5 SCR 361; Partap v. State of U.P., (1976) 2 SCC 798 : [1976] 1 SCR 757 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.