Vanravan Anandji Vs. Koli Vashram Punja & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 637 of 1992.
With Criminal Appeal No. 638 of 1992.
With Criminal Appeal No. 638 of 1992.
Petitioner: Vanravan Anandji
Respondent: Koli Vashram Punja & Anr.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 637 of 1992.
With Criminal Appeal No. 638 of 1992.
With Criminal Appeal No. 638 of 1992.
Judges: DR. A.S. ANAND, CJI, R.C. LAHOTI & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 30, 2001
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Evidence Act, 1872
Section 3 with Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 147,148,149 – Injured eyewitness – Reliability – Witness given lift by another PW – No mention of causing injuries to deceased and witnesses – Narration to PW, first in time. Held, omission creates a doubt about truthfulness of witness. (Para 6)
Section 3 – Injured eyewitness – Also brother of deceased – Injury caused while intervening – Approaches his brother- in- law to remove deceased to hospital – Deceased removed twice by PW and his brother- in- law – No bloodstains on clothes though hands soaked with blood. Held ,it creates doubt on entire prosecution case. (Para 7)
Section 3 – Appreciation – Accused party also injured – They had given their version to police and in statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Doctor, who examined them, though cited as witness by prosecution, not examined. Held , this creates doubt about correctness of prosecution case. (Para 8)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. These two appeals by special leave call in question the judg-ment of acquittal recorded by the High Court on 27th April, 1984, setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the respondents by the trial court vide judgment dated 21st December, 1981.
2. According to the prosecution case, on 18th June, 1981 between 6 and 6.30 a.m. at the gate of Pipar Street at Village Kodinar, Distt. Amreli, the respondents in prosecution of their common object to commit the murder of deceased Thakershi Anand Ji and to cause hurt to any person who may interfere to save the deceased, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons and not only caused the murder of Thakershi Anand Ji but also caused injuries to a number of prosecution witnesses. It is alleged that there was bad blood between the accused party and the complainant party on account of political rivalry. The trial court, after recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses, convicted the respondents for offences under Sections 147,148, 323/149, 324/149, and 302/149 and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life for offences under Sections 302/149 IPC and to varying terms of imprisonment for other offences. On appeal, the High Court, as already noticed, set aside the conviction and sentence of all the respondents and acquitted them.
3. Out of the respondents, accused nos. 1,2, and 5 are brothers. Accused nos. 4 and 6 are also brothers and accused no. 3 is their cousin. They all belong to Koli community. So far as prosecution witnesses are concerned, PW-4 Vanravan Anand Ji is the brother of deceased Thakershi Anand Ji while other witnesses belong to their group. PW-4 is the first informant in the case.
4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the High Court and examined the testimony of material witnesses produced by the prosecution.
5. Apart from the reasons given by the High Court, while record-ing the order of acquittal, which reasons to our mind are neither perverse nor unreasonable, we find that there are some other circumstances also which go to indicate that the prosecution did not come to the Court with clean hands.
6. PW-5 is an injured witness. The version of Nissar Hussain, PW-5 disclosed to Ibrahimkhan, PW-9, who gave him a lift on his motor bike to the hospital, was the first in point of time made by the injured PW-5 to any one. In that version, allegations regarding the assault on the deceased and causing of injuries to other witnesses are conspicuously absent. Had he actually wit-nessed the occurrence, he would not have omitted to mention about the serious assault on the deceased to PW-9 more particularly because he allegedly received the injury while trying to save the deceased. This omission creates a doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case.
7. Again Vanravan Anand Ji, PW-4 is the brother of the deceased. The explanation given by him for his presence at the spot so early in the morning, was disclosed by him for the first time in the Court. He admitted during his cross-examination that he had not stated either in the first information report dated 18th June, 1981 or in his additional statement recorded on 22nd July, 1981 that Kalumiyan and Sadiqbapu were to accompany him on the day of incident for going to Amreli from Kodinar. According to PW-4, on seeing the assault on Thakershi Anand Ji deceased and others, he tried to intervene and in the process received an injury on his head with a stick at the hands of one of the re-spondents. He then went to Bachubhai, PW-8, his brother-in-law to request him to bring the lorry to take the injured to the hospi-tal. He did not at that time tell him (PW-8) that he had also received an injury at the time of the assault. According to PW-4 and PW-8, they removed the deceased in the lorry, first to the Government Hospital and then took the deceased in the car of PW-4 to sugar factory hospital. Both of them stated that they alone had lifted the deceased who was lying injured and put him in the lorry while taking him to the Government Hospital and again lifted him from the lorry and put him in the car while taking him to the sugar factory hospital from the compound of Government Hospital. Strangely enough, however, their clothes did not get stained with blood. It is not a case where the investigating officer may have failed to notice bloodstains on their clothes but both PW-4 and PW-8 admitted during their cross – examination, that their clothes did not get bloodstained though their hands were soaked with blood and those hands also did not touch any part of their clothes. The absence of bloodstains on their clothes, if their version is to be believed, creates a doubt about the entire prosecution case. The possibility, therefore, that PW-4 actually did not see the occurrence and being brother of the deceased came forward to depose in favour of the prosecu-tion cannot be ruled out.
8. Some of the accused had also received injuries. They were medically examined. They had given a version about their injuries to the police and repeated the same during their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Dr. Pallan Punia who had been cited by the prosecution as a witness to prove the injuries caused to some of the accused- respondents, was for reasons best known to the prosecution, not examined at the trial. This also creates a doubt about the correctness of the prosecution story.
9 The view taken by the High Court on appreciation of evidence, coupled with the reasons given by us above, shows that the view taken by the High Court on appreciation of evidence was a possi-ble view and the reasons given by the High Court do not suffer from any perversity or even unreasonableness. Our independent appreciation of evidence also reveals that the prosecution failed to establish its case against the respondents beyond the reason-able doubts.
10. Thus, we do not find any merit in these appeals. Both these appeals, therefore, fail and are dismissed. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
1. These two appeals by special leave call in question the judg-ment of acquittal recorded by the High Court on 27th April, 1984, setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the respondents by the trial court vide judgment dated 21st December, 1981.
2. According to the prosecution case, on 18th June, 1981 between 6 and 6.30 a.m. at the gate of Pipar Street at Village Kodinar, Distt. Amreli, the respondents in prosecution of their common object to commit the murder of deceased Thakershi Anand Ji and to cause hurt to any person who may interfere to save the deceased, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons and not only caused the murder of Thakershi Anand Ji but also caused injuries to a number of prosecution witnesses. It is alleged that there was bad blood between the accused party and the complainant party on account of political rivalry. The trial court, after recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses, convicted the respondents for offences under Sections 147,148, 323/149, 324/149, and 302/149 and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life for offences under Sections 302/149 IPC and to varying terms of imprisonment for other offences. On appeal, the High Court, as already noticed, set aside the conviction and sentence of all the respondents and acquitted them.
3. Out of the respondents, accused nos. 1,2, and 5 are brothers. Accused nos. 4 and 6 are also brothers and accused no. 3 is their cousin. They all belong to Koli community. So far as prosecution witnesses are concerned, PW-4 Vanravan Anand Ji is the brother of deceased Thakershi Anand Ji while other witnesses belong to their group. PW-4 is the first informant in the case.
4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the High Court and examined the testimony of material witnesses produced by the prosecution.
5. Apart from the reasons given by the High Court, while record-ing the order of acquittal, which reasons to our mind are neither perverse nor unreasonable, we find that there are some other circumstances also which go to indicate that the prosecution did not come to the Court with clean hands.
6. PW-5 is an injured witness. The version of Nissar Hussain, PW-5 disclosed to Ibrahimkhan, PW-9, who gave him a lift on his motor bike to the hospital, was the first in point of time made by the injured PW-5 to any one. In that version, allegations regarding the assault on the deceased and causing of injuries to other witnesses are conspicuously absent. Had he actually wit-nessed the occurrence, he would not have omitted to mention about the serious assault on the deceased to PW-9 more particularly because he allegedly received the injury while trying to save the deceased. This omission creates a doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case.
7. Again Vanravan Anand Ji, PW-4 is the brother of the deceased. The explanation given by him for his presence at the spot so early in the morning, was disclosed by him for the first time in the Court. He admitted during his cross-examination that he had not stated either in the first information report dated 18th June, 1981 or in his additional statement recorded on 22nd July, 1981 that Kalumiyan and Sadiqbapu were to accompany him on the day of incident for going to Amreli from Kodinar. According to PW-4, on seeing the assault on Thakershi Anand Ji deceased and others, he tried to intervene and in the process received an injury on his head with a stick at the hands of one of the re-spondents. He then went to Bachubhai, PW-8, his brother-in-law to request him to bring the lorry to take the injured to the hospi-tal. He did not at that time tell him (PW-8) that he had also received an injury at the time of the assault. According to PW-4 and PW-8, they removed the deceased in the lorry, first to the Government Hospital and then took the deceased in the car of PW-4 to sugar factory hospital. Both of them stated that they alone had lifted the deceased who was lying injured and put him in the lorry while taking him to the Government Hospital and again lifted him from the lorry and put him in the car while taking him to the sugar factory hospital from the compound of Government Hospital. Strangely enough, however, their clothes did not get stained with blood. It is not a case where the investigating officer may have failed to notice bloodstains on their clothes but both PW-4 and PW-8 admitted during their cross – examination, that their clothes did not get bloodstained though their hands were soaked with blood and those hands also did not touch any part of their clothes. The absence of bloodstains on their clothes, if their version is to be believed, creates a doubt about the entire prosecution case. The possibility, therefore, that PW-4 actually did not see the occurrence and being brother of the deceased came forward to depose in favour of the prosecu-tion cannot be ruled out.
8. Some of the accused had also received injuries. They were medically examined. They had given a version about their injuries to the police and repeated the same during their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Dr. Pallan Punia who had been cited by the prosecution as a witness to prove the injuries caused to some of the accused- respondents, was for reasons best known to the prosecution, not examined at the trial. This also creates a doubt about the correctness of the prosecution story.
9 The view taken by the High Court on appreciation of evidence, coupled with the reasons given by us above, shows that the view taken by the High Court on appreciation of evidence was a possi-ble view and the reasons given by the High Court do not suffer from any perversity or even unreasonableness. Our independent appreciation of evidence also reveals that the prosecution failed to establish its case against the respondents beyond the reason-able doubts.
10. Thus, we do not find any merit in these appeals. Both these appeals, therefore, fail and are dismissed. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
