Penal Code, 1860 – s.302, 34 – Three accused persons including the appellant were prosecuted for committing murder of one ‘B’ – Appellant convicted u/s.302/34, IPC while the other two accused were acquitted – High Court dismissed the appeal filed by appellant – Held: Evidence of prosecution witnesses proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt – Evidence of eye-witnesses PW-1 and PW-3 proved that the appellant assaulted the deceased on his neck and its nearby with Gupti – PW-5, the doctor, also confirmed the injuries, its nature and the area where the injuries were sustained by the deceased – There is no inconsistency or contradiction between the witnesses to disbelieve their evidence on any material issue – Their testimony being natural and consistent and without any contradiction as against the version stated in FIR, deserves to be believed – It is not the function of Supreme Court to re-assess evidence and an argument on a point of fact which did not prevail with the Courts below – Same argument, which was unsuccessfully urged before the High Court, was again pressed in service before Supreme Court by the appellant to question the legality and correctness of the order of conviction and sentence but having appreciated the submissions, no merit is found in any of them – High Court was right in repelling these submissions and upholding the appellant’s conviction – Constitution of India – Art.136 .
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is not the function of this Court to re-assess evidence and an argument on a point of fact which did not prevail with the Courts below cannot avail the appellants in this Court. [Para 20][545-D]
1.2 The same argument, which was unsuccessfully urged before the High Court, was again pressed in service before this Court by the appellant to question the legality and correctness of the order of conviction and sentence but having appreciated the submissions, no merit is found in any of them. The High Court was right in repelling these submissions and upholding the appellant’s conviction. [Para 24][546-A-B]
1.3 The evidence of PW-1-, PW-3, PW-2, PW-6 and PW-4 proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. So far as the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 are concerned, they actually saw the incident and stated that the appellant assaulted the deceased on his neck and its nearby with Gupti. They also deposed that both of them chased the appellant and Santosh on seeing the assault made by the appellant. PW-4 (in whose house the deceased was brought in injured condition soon after the incident and where he died) also saw the condition of the deceased and the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. [Paras 25, 26 and 27][246B-D]
1.4 PW-6, being the sister of deceased, rushed to the house of PW-4 on being informed of the incident where ‘B’ was lying in an injured condition. She deposed that on seeing her ‘B’ hugged her and told that the appellant had assaulted him. After some time, ‘B’ succumbed to his injuries. The evidence of the witnesses has proved beyond reasonable doubt that assault on the deceased was made by the appellant on his neck and nearby area. PW-5, Dr. ‘RS’ also confirmed the injuries, its nature and the area where the injuries were sustained by the deceased in his post-mortem report. No inconsistency or contradictory version between these witnesses has been noticed which may persuade one to disbelieve their evidence on any material issue. Their testimony being natural and consistent and without any contradiction as against the version stated in FIR, the same deserves to be believed. As rightly held by the High Court, some minor contradictions here and there without affecting the substance of their statements could not be made basis to reject their entire testimony. The incident in question occurred around 7.30 p.m. on 19.09.1999, whereas the FIR was lodged by PW-1 on the next day, i.e., 20.09.1999 at around 9 a.m. The Police Station was around 25 KM away from the place of occurrence. Since ‘B’ died after few hours of the incident and by that time it was dark night, it was, therefore, not possible for the complainant to go to the Police Station which was around 25 KM away from the place of occurrence immediately in the night to lodge the report/FIR. In these circumstances, if PW1 left for lodging report/FIR on the next day morning and lodged the report/FIR around 9.30 a.m. it cannot be said that there was delay in lodging the report/FIR. There is no good ground to interfere with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the two Courts below which rightly held the appellant guilty for commission of the offence in question. [Paras 28-31, 33-35][546E-H; 547-A, C-E] Lachhman Singh and others v. State AIR 1952 SC 167: [1952] SCR 839 –
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.