Manoharan & Ors. Vs. State, Rep. By S.I. of Police Chevayur
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 759-760 of 1994
Petitioner: Manoharan & Ors.
Respondent: State, Rep. By S.I. of Police Chevayur
Apeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 759-760 of 1994
Judges: U.C. Banerjee & Arun Kumar, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 12, 2002
Head Note:
Criminal Law
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 302/34 and Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 3- Benefit of doubt- Out of 4 accused, three stated to have held the victim to facilitate stabbing- No overt act alleged- No arms used by them except by first accused. Held that conviction of other three is not sustainable. Benefit of doubt given.
Held:
The question being whether in fact the accused committed the offence which pointedly pointed out the involvement of the accused persons so as to facilitate the stab injury as stands accepted by the High Court. The learned sessions judge left it as a matter of fact with some amount of doubt on an analysis of the entire situation – there is no attempt on the part of any of the eye witnesses or even an attempt to take the victim out of the grapples of the accused persons. This may not be in accordance with the normal behavioural pattern. (Para 11)
The reactions of onlookers, as noticed above, though stated to be different but those, who came forward in the matter came with a definite bent of mind as regard their obligation to save the victim from the situation. Unfortunately, however, there is no such effort neither any evidence of such an effort is available on record – the absence of the same thus creates a doubt in our mind as regards the involvement of these three accused persons. Needless to record that there were no arms available neither any user thereof by these three accused persons. The only user of the arm was attributed to accused number 1 and to none other. (Para 12)
Cases Reffered:
1. Leela Ram v. State of Haryana (JT 1999 (8) SC 274) (Para 11)
JUDGEMENT:
Order
1. These appeals are directed against an order of conviction of the appellant herein passed by the High Court of Kerala wherein the High Court reversed the order of acquittal of the appellants herein as passed by the learned sessions judge, Kozhikode. The appeals pertain to the killing of two persons, viz., Vijayan and Viju who were stabbed to death and their death was the resultant effect of political rivalry.
2. Number of people were involved in the incident – one being the Marxist Communist Party group of people and the other being the Congress (I) group. We are not here concerned with the political rivalry and refrain ourselves on that score, except recording that they belonged to two different political parties.
3. The contextual facts depict that 13 accused persons stood charged for having committed the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 324, 307, 341 and 120 (B) (i) read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case happened to be as records depict, the appellants herein being accused persons, nos. 5, 7 and 10, have been guilty of overt acts by holding Vijayan so as to enable the first accused to stab him.
4. Incidentally, the first accused was found guilty under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code both by the learned sessions judge as also by the High Court and the matter has now attained a finality against him, since the special leave petition filed by him has already been dismissed by this Court on an earlier occasion and the matter stands concluded against him by reason therefor.
5. This appeal thus stands restricted to the three persons, as noticed above.
6. According to PW. 1, when he saw Vijayan being stabbed he went upto him and caught hold of Vijayan who was falling down and that it was at that time he was stabbed by the first accused and even then he had not left his hold of Vijayan. But at the time of the stab injury the accused persons being nos. 5, 7 and 10 were holding Vijayan so as to facilitate such act.
7. The learned sessions judge, however, thought it fit not to accept the evidence to the extent mentioned above by reason wherefore the accused persons were let off and were thus acquitted.
8. The High Court in appeal, however, reversed the order of acquittal and convicted them under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life.
9. Incidentally, be it noted that the High Court did consider the factum of the three accused holding the deceased upon, however, coming to a conclusion that the case under section 34 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be maintained. It is necessary to mention the same since it has some relevance as regards the maintainability of the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
10. Overt act spoken of stands negated by the learned sessions judge as noticed hereinbefore.
11. Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of the parties whilst it is true that appraisal of evidence on the part of the High Court is an obligation under the law being the first appellate court and the High Court stands justified in such an appraisal. The issue, however, arises in the contextual facts as to whether on the basis of the available evidence on record, this reversal of the finding of the learned sessions judge as regards accused numbers 5, 7 and 10 can be stated to be justified – the question being whether in fact the accused committed the offence which pointedly pointed out the involvement of the accused persons so as to facilitate the stab injury as stands accepted by the High Court. The learned sessions judge left it as a matter of fact with some amount of doubt on an analysis of the entire situation – there is no attempt on the part of any of the eye witnesses or even an attempt to take the victim out of the grapples of the accused persons. This may not be in accordance with the normal behavioural pattern. Incidentally, this Court in Leela Ram v. State of Haryana1, where one of us was a party (U.C. Banerjee, J.) stated as below:-
“11. The Court shall have to bear in mind that different witnesses react differently under different situations: where as some become speechless, some start wailing while some others run away from the scene and yet there are some who may come forward with courage, conviction and belief that the wrong should be remedied. As a matter of fact it depends upon individual to individual. There cannot be any set pattern or uniform rule of human reaction and to discard a piece of evidence on the ground of his reaction not falling within a set pattern is unproductive and a pedantic exercise.”
12. The reactions of onlookers, as noticed above, though stated to be different but those, who came forward in the matter came with a definite bent of mind as regard their obligation to save the victim from the situation. Unfortunately, however, there is no such effort neither any evidence of such an effort is available on record – the absence of the same thus creates a doubt in our mind as regards the involvement of these three accused persons, namely, 5, 7 and 10. Needless to record that there were no arms available neither any user thereof by these three accused persons. The only user of the arm was attributed to accused number 1 and to none other.
13. On the wake of the aforesaid and by reason of the doubt, as noticed above, and in accordance with the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence, we do feel it expedient to confer the benefit of doubt to the accused persons (appellants herein) and accordingly acquit them of the charges levelled against them. These appeals succeed and are allowed accordingly. The order of conviction and sentence stands set aside and quashed. Bail bonds shall stand discharged.
*****************
1. These appeals are directed against an order of conviction of the appellant herein passed by the High Court of Kerala wherein the High Court reversed the order of acquittal of the appellants herein as passed by the learned sessions judge, Kozhikode. The appeals pertain to the killing of two persons, viz., Vijayan and Viju who were stabbed to death and their death was the resultant effect of political rivalry.
2. Number of people were involved in the incident – one being the Marxist Communist Party group of people and the other being the Congress (I) group. We are not here concerned with the political rivalry and refrain ourselves on that score, except recording that they belonged to two different political parties.
3. The contextual facts depict that 13 accused persons stood charged for having committed the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 324, 307, 341 and 120 (B) (i) read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case happened to be as records depict, the appellants herein being accused persons, nos. 5, 7 and 10, have been guilty of overt acts by holding Vijayan so as to enable the first accused to stab him.
4. Incidentally, the first accused was found guilty under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code both by the learned sessions judge as also by the High Court and the matter has now attained a finality against him, since the special leave petition filed by him has already been dismissed by this Court on an earlier occasion and the matter stands concluded against him by reason therefor.
5. This appeal thus stands restricted to the three persons, as noticed above.
6. According to PW. 1, when he saw Vijayan being stabbed he went upto him and caught hold of Vijayan who was falling down and that it was at that time he was stabbed by the first accused and even then he had not left his hold of Vijayan. But at the time of the stab injury the accused persons being nos. 5, 7 and 10 were holding Vijayan so as to facilitate such act.
7. The learned sessions judge, however, thought it fit not to accept the evidence to the extent mentioned above by reason wherefore the accused persons were let off and were thus acquitted.
8. The High Court in appeal, however, reversed the order of acquittal and convicted them under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life.
9. Incidentally, be it noted that the High Court did consider the factum of the three accused holding the deceased upon, however, coming to a conclusion that the case under section 34 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be maintained. It is necessary to mention the same since it has some relevance as regards the maintainability of the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
10. Overt act spoken of stands negated by the learned sessions judge as noticed hereinbefore.
11. Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of the parties whilst it is true that appraisal of evidence on the part of the High Court is an obligation under the law being the first appellate court and the High Court stands justified in such an appraisal. The issue, however, arises in the contextual facts as to whether on the basis of the available evidence on record, this reversal of the finding of the learned sessions judge as regards accused numbers 5, 7 and 10 can be stated to be justified – the question being whether in fact the accused committed the offence which pointedly pointed out the involvement of the accused persons so as to facilitate the stab injury as stands accepted by the High Court. The learned sessions judge left it as a matter of fact with some amount of doubt on an analysis of the entire situation – there is no attempt on the part of any of the eye witnesses or even an attempt to take the victim out of the grapples of the accused persons. This may not be in accordance with the normal behavioural pattern. Incidentally, this Court in Leela Ram v. State of Haryana1, where one of us was a party (U.C. Banerjee, J.) stated as below:-
“11. The Court shall have to bear in mind that different witnesses react differently under different situations: where as some become speechless, some start wailing while some others run away from the scene and yet there are some who may come forward with courage, conviction and belief that the wrong should be remedied. As a matter of fact it depends upon individual to individual. There cannot be any set pattern or uniform rule of human reaction and to discard a piece of evidence on the ground of his reaction not falling within a set pattern is unproductive and a pedantic exercise.”
12. The reactions of onlookers, as noticed above, though stated to be different but those, who came forward in the matter came with a definite bent of mind as regard their obligation to save the victim from the situation. Unfortunately, however, there is no such effort neither any evidence of such an effort is available on record – the absence of the same thus creates a doubt in our mind as regards the involvement of these three accused persons, namely, 5, 7 and 10. Needless to record that there were no arms available neither any user thereof by these three accused persons. The only user of the arm was attributed to accused number 1 and to none other.
13. On the wake of the aforesaid and by reason of the doubt, as noticed above, and in accordance with the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence, we do feel it expedient to confer the benefit of doubt to the accused persons (appellants herein) and accordingly acquit them of the charges levelled against them. These appeals succeed and are allowed accordingly. The order of conviction and sentence stands set aside and quashed. Bail bonds shall stand discharged.
*****************
