Penal Code, 1860: s.302 – Fifteen accused – Prosecution case was that there was history of previous attack on complainant party – On the fateful day, all the accused armed with weapons surrounded PW-1, PW-2 and the deceased – A-11 instigated the other accused to cut the victim-deceased into pieces – Pursuant to that, they were attacked whereby A-13 chopped the left hand below elbow of PW-1 whereas A-6 hit left shoulder of PW-2 while the victim-deceased was attacked on several parts of his body with sword by the accused persons – PW-1 and PW-2 escaped from the clutches of the accused – Victim-deceased succumbed to injuries – Trial court and High Court convicted the appellants and other accused persons for various offences – On appeal, held: Though, the argument for the appellants was that PW-1 and PW-2 were introduced witnesses but the lengthy cross-examination conducted on them did not lead to any such inference – Postmortem report showed multiple injuries on the victim-deceased – The oral testimony of material witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 was corroborated by the medical evidence, whereas the motive of taking life of the deceased was made out from the incident – Therefore, the findings recorded by the courts below were plausible findings in law – Some contradictions may have arisen on account of perception of the witnesses and passage of time, but the creditability of the witnesses were not shaken – Therefore, such witnesses were reliable and creditworthy – Since there was a history of earlier attack on the deceased, accused formed an unlawful assembly with a view to take life of the victim-deceased – No reason to interfere with the order of conviction.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: PW-4 stated that he, along with the victimdeceased, were beaten up by the accused. He further stated that he sustained injuries on the face below both the eyes. The statement of PW-5, wife of PW-4 was also to the same effect. The oral testimony of material witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 was corroborated by the medical evidence, whereas the motive of taking life of the deceased was made out from the incident. Therefore, the findings recorded by the courts below were plausible findings in law. Some contradictions arose on account of perception of the witnesses and due to passage of time. But the creditability of the witnesses was not shaken. On the exhortation of A-11, the accused who were armed with sword had raised murdered assault on the deceased and also injured PW-1 and PW-2. Since there is a history of earlier attack on the deceased on April 8, 2003, accused formed an unlawful assembly with a view to take life of the victim-deceased. It is cumulative effect of the evidence led by the prosecution which determines whether unlawful assembly had a common object to commit culpable homicide amounting to murder. [Paras 10-13] [1120-G-H; 1121A-E] Ram Laxman v. State of Rajasthan (2016) 12 SCC 389; Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh v. Valerabhai Deganbhai Vagh & Ors. (2017) 3 SCC 261– distinguished.
Mahendran v. State of Tamil Nadu (2019) 5 SCC 67 – held inapplicable.
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.