Raja Vs. State of M.P.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2000
Petitioner: Raja
Respondent: State of M.P.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2000
Judges: Dr. A.S. ANAND, CJI, R.C. LAHOTI & P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 17, 2001
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Evidence Act, 1872
a) Section 3 with Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Partisan witnesses – Incident at 9.30 p.m. – Brother and niece of deceased coming out on hearing noise and seeing accused giving knife blows – Evidence corroborated by medical evidence – Certain omissions noted by trial court and accused acquitted. Held that the findings of trial court was perverse. Evidence was truthful and wrongly discarded.
Held:
The sequence of events, as narrated by PW-9, is fully supported by PW-1 and despite lengthy cross-examination of two witnesses, their testimony has remained unshaken. Their evidence has been fully corroborated by medical evidence also. According to both these witnesses, they had seen after coming out on hearing noise, the appellant actually stab deceased two or three times. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. On 11th January, 1991, at about 9.30 p.m. Kailash deceased, received injuries from a knife in Kasara Bazar, Ratlam and when removed to the hospital, he succumbed to those injuries by about 10.45. p.m. Appellant Raja @ Lalit along with Mangu @ Mangilal were charged with murder of Kailash. According to the prosecution case, at the relevant time, Mangu had a scuffle with the deceased and hearing the noise of commotion, brother of the deceased, Gopal and his niece Sarita, PWs- 9 and 1, respectively came out of their room and saw that the appellant was giving repeated knife blows to the deceased on various parts of his body, while Mangu was holding the deceased. A small crowd had gathered at the spot. After that deceased was removed to the hospital by his brother Gopal Krishan, PW9 in an auto-rikshaw. Gopal PW-7 went to lodge a report at the police station, which was lodged within about 45 minutes of the occurrence at about 10.30 p.m. The FIR was recorded by investigating officer-PW-12 Praveen Thakur. When the police reached the hospital, it was found that Kailash, who had been removed to the hospital by his brother and other relatives, had succumbed to his injuries. Gopal, PW-9, was told that FIR had already been lodged. The investigating officer returned to the police station and went to the place of occurrence for investigation and to provide security at the home of the deceased. Investigation was taken in hand. After completion of the investigation, during which the weapon of offence-knife was also recovered on a statement made by the appellant under section 27 of the Evidence Act, the challan was put up before the trial court. The learned trial court, vide judgment dated 1.8.1994, acquitted both the appellant and his co-accused, Mangu. Aggrieved by their acquittal, state filed an appeal in the High Court. Vide judgement dated 20.12.1999, the High Court has set aside the order of acquittal insofar as the appellant is concerned, but maintained the order of acquittal insofar as co-accused – Mangu is concerned by holding him, entitled to the benefit of doubt. By special leave, the appellant is before us. State has not questioned the order of acquittal of Mangu, co-accused of the appellant.
2. That an incident took place on 11th January, 1991, at about 9.30 p.m. in which Kailash, deceased received injuries is not in doubt. The postmortem report proved by PW-6 not only reveals the number of injuries received by the deceased but also their site. Those injuries were found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased. Who caused those injuries was the only issue debated before the trial court and the High Court? The trial court, while appreciating the evidence, particularly of PW-1 Sarita and PW-9 Gopal Krishan Soni, found various omissions in the statements made by those witnesses in the court as compared to their police statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. The trial court, taking note of those omissions, came to record a finding that neither PW-1. nor PW-9 could have witnessed the occurrence and that both these witnesses had come to the scene after the incident and could not have seen the appellant causing the injuries to the deceased. The trial court held the appellant and his co-accused entitled to the benefit of doubt. The High Court, while appreciating various reasons given by the trial court found that the reasoning was ‘perverse’. It was also found that the reasoning of the trial court was based on mis-appreciation of evidence.
3. We have with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties and with a view to satisfy our judicial conscience, perused the statements of PW-1 and PW-9 as also the reasons given by the trial court and the High Court. The sequence of events, as narrated by PW-9, is fully supported by PW-1 and despite lengthy cross-examination of two witnesses, their testimony has remained unshaken. Their evidence has been fully corroborated by medical evidence also. According to both these witnesses, they had seen after coming out on hearing noise, the appellant actually stabbed deceased two or three times. Much has been sought to be made of the fact that the statement of Gopal Krishan Soni PW-9, brother of the deceased, was recorded the next day to doubt his veracity. According to PW-9, after the death of his brother in the hospital, he returned home at night and when the body was given back to the family after postmortem examination at about 9 a.m., he got busy in arranging for cremation of his brother which took place at about 12.30 in the afternoon of 12th January, 1991. His statement was recorded thereafter by the police. This appears to be a very natural course of events. Sarita PW-1 reiterated in her cross-examination, after asserting so in the examination-in-chief, that both the statements of her father and herself were recorded by the investigating officer, the next day. She made a truthful statement in that regard. We agree with the High Court that the approach of the trial court to disbelieve PW-1 and PW-9 was not at all reasonable and the appreciation of evidence by it was perverse. Evidence of PW-1 and PW-9, which is fully corroborated by the medical evidence provided by PW-6, establishes beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant who had given knife blows to the deceased on the fateful night. It does not stand to reason that PW-1 and PW-9, close relations of the deceased, would leave out the real culprit and falsely implicate the appellant. Our independent analysis of the evidence of both these witnesses shows that they are the witnesses of truth and their testimony is reliable. The trial court wrongly discarded their evidence and the reasons given by the trial court do not bear judicial scrutiny. Those reasons have been rightly discarded by the High Court, which was conscious of the fact that it was hearing an appeal against acquittal. The reasons given by the High Court to differ from the trial court are good, cogent and sound. Case against the appellant stands established beyond any reasonable doubt.
4. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the judgment of the High Court in setting aside the order of acquittal, recorded by the trial court and convicting the appellant for an offence under section 302 IPC. and sentencing him to undergo RI. for life.
5. We do not find any merit in this appeal, which fails and is hereby dismissed.
1. On 11th January, 1991, at about 9.30 p.m. Kailash deceased, received injuries from a knife in Kasara Bazar, Ratlam and when removed to the hospital, he succumbed to those injuries by about 10.45. p.m. Appellant Raja @ Lalit along with Mangu @ Mangilal were charged with murder of Kailash. According to the prosecution case, at the relevant time, Mangu had a scuffle with the deceased and hearing the noise of commotion, brother of the deceased, Gopal and his niece Sarita, PWs- 9 and 1, respectively came out of their room and saw that the appellant was giving repeated knife blows to the deceased on various parts of his body, while Mangu was holding the deceased. A small crowd had gathered at the spot. After that deceased was removed to the hospital by his brother Gopal Krishan, PW9 in an auto-rikshaw. Gopal PW-7 went to lodge a report at the police station, which was lodged within about 45 minutes of the occurrence at about 10.30 p.m. The FIR was recorded by investigating officer-PW-12 Praveen Thakur. When the police reached the hospital, it was found that Kailash, who had been removed to the hospital by his brother and other relatives, had succumbed to his injuries. Gopal, PW-9, was told that FIR had already been lodged. The investigating officer returned to the police station and went to the place of occurrence for investigation and to provide security at the home of the deceased. Investigation was taken in hand. After completion of the investigation, during which the weapon of offence-knife was also recovered on a statement made by the appellant under section 27 of the Evidence Act, the challan was put up before the trial court. The learned trial court, vide judgment dated 1.8.1994, acquitted both the appellant and his co-accused, Mangu. Aggrieved by their acquittal, state filed an appeal in the High Court. Vide judgement dated 20.12.1999, the High Court has set aside the order of acquittal insofar as the appellant is concerned, but maintained the order of acquittal insofar as co-accused – Mangu is concerned by holding him, entitled to the benefit of doubt. By special leave, the appellant is before us. State has not questioned the order of acquittal of Mangu, co-accused of the appellant.
2. That an incident took place on 11th January, 1991, at about 9.30 p.m. in which Kailash, deceased received injuries is not in doubt. The postmortem report proved by PW-6 not only reveals the number of injuries received by the deceased but also their site. Those injuries were found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased. Who caused those injuries was the only issue debated before the trial court and the High Court? The trial court, while appreciating the evidence, particularly of PW-1 Sarita and PW-9 Gopal Krishan Soni, found various omissions in the statements made by those witnesses in the court as compared to their police statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. The trial court, taking note of those omissions, came to record a finding that neither PW-1. nor PW-9 could have witnessed the occurrence and that both these witnesses had come to the scene after the incident and could not have seen the appellant causing the injuries to the deceased. The trial court held the appellant and his co-accused entitled to the benefit of doubt. The High Court, while appreciating various reasons given by the trial court found that the reasoning was ‘perverse’. It was also found that the reasoning of the trial court was based on mis-appreciation of evidence.
3. We have with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties and with a view to satisfy our judicial conscience, perused the statements of PW-1 and PW-9 as also the reasons given by the trial court and the High Court. The sequence of events, as narrated by PW-9, is fully supported by PW-1 and despite lengthy cross-examination of two witnesses, their testimony has remained unshaken. Their evidence has been fully corroborated by medical evidence also. According to both these witnesses, they had seen after coming out on hearing noise, the appellant actually stabbed deceased two or three times. Much has been sought to be made of the fact that the statement of Gopal Krishan Soni PW-9, brother of the deceased, was recorded the next day to doubt his veracity. According to PW-9, after the death of his brother in the hospital, he returned home at night and when the body was given back to the family after postmortem examination at about 9 a.m., he got busy in arranging for cremation of his brother which took place at about 12.30 in the afternoon of 12th January, 1991. His statement was recorded thereafter by the police. This appears to be a very natural course of events. Sarita PW-1 reiterated in her cross-examination, after asserting so in the examination-in-chief, that both the statements of her father and herself were recorded by the investigating officer, the next day. She made a truthful statement in that regard. We agree with the High Court that the approach of the trial court to disbelieve PW-1 and PW-9 was not at all reasonable and the appreciation of evidence by it was perverse. Evidence of PW-1 and PW-9, which is fully corroborated by the medical evidence provided by PW-6, establishes beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant who had given knife blows to the deceased on the fateful night. It does not stand to reason that PW-1 and PW-9, close relations of the deceased, would leave out the real culprit and falsely implicate the appellant. Our independent analysis of the evidence of both these witnesses shows that they are the witnesses of truth and their testimony is reliable. The trial court wrongly discarded their evidence and the reasons given by the trial court do not bear judicial scrutiny. Those reasons have been rightly discarded by the High Court, which was conscious of the fact that it was hearing an appeal against acquittal. The reasons given by the High Court to differ from the trial court are good, cogent and sound. Case against the appellant stands established beyond any reasonable doubt.
4. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the judgment of the High Court in setting aside the order of acquittal, recorded by the trial court and convicting the appellant for an offence under section 302 IPC. and sentencing him to undergo RI. for life.
5. We do not find any merit in this appeal, which fails and is hereby dismissed.
