Bhaiyyu @ Najir And Anr. vs State Of M.P.
- CitationAIRONLINE 2002 SC 134
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
1. Where an injured eyewitness to a crime is known to the accused, bears no enmity towards them, and has suffered serious injury consistent with the account given, the trial court's reliance on that witness's evidence on material aspects of the incident is justified and may be upheld on appeal, notwithstanding that the witness was at some distance from part of the incident or that conditions of visibility were poor. 2. Minor discrepancies regarding the exact place of occurrence are immaterial to conviction where other evidence, including a spot map prepared by official survey, corroborates that an incident occurred in the general vicinity described, and where physical evidence such as blood-stained earth from the location supports the prosecution case. 3. Medical evidence corroborating the eyewitness account of injuries, recovery of weapons bearing blood stains consistent with those injuries, and the number and nature of injuries inflicted are material facts supporting conviction even where the recovery of weapons occurred at a later stage. 4. Where the number and nature of injuries to a deceased could not have been caused by a single person, and two appellants are present at the scene with different weapons, conviction under Section 302 IPC may be sustained without explicit reliance on Section 34 IPC, on the basis that the evidence establishes each appellant's participation in the commission of the crime. 5. Where both the trial court and the High Court, on proper appreciation of evidence, have arrived at a concurrent conclusion of guilt, an appellate court will not interfere with the conviction absent justification or good ground to do so.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. The appellants in this appeal stand convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to imprisonment for life. The appellant No. 1, in addition to Section 302 was also convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under Section 324 IPC by the trial court. On appeal the High Court did not find any good reason to interfere with the
order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants. Consequently their appeals were also dismissed. Hence these appeals by the appellants.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, was that on 26th February, 1995 at about 7.30 p.m. Aslam (PW 1) and Sarwar (the deceased) and the appellants were walking together and when they reached near Ramanandnagar Pulia the appellants demanded Rs. 200/- each from Aslam and Sarwar for celebrating ID. They offered to pay Rs. 100/- each pleading their inability to pay more. On being annoyed the appellant No. 1 stabbed Aslam with knife and thereafter both the appellants started stabbing Sarwar. As many as 12 injuries were caused to the deceased Sarwar and he died on the spot. After Aslam was assaulted he ran away from the place of incident and lodged the FIR. On registering a case and after investigation both the appellants were charge-sheeted. The learned sessions judge after trial and after appreciating the material placed on record found both the appellants guilty for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and, he further found the appellant No. 1 punishable under Section 324 IPC also.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants strongly contended that excepting the evidence of Aslam (the injured witness) the prosecution case was not at all supported by any other private witness. The evidence of PW 1 ought not to have been believed as to the assault by the appellants on the deceased inasmuch as Aslam having suffered knife injury ran away from the place of incident as such he could see the assault on the deceased from distance, more so in the darkness. The learned counsel also contended that there were discrepancies as to the place of occurrence and there are serious contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. He lastly contended that without the aid of Section 34 IPC the appellants could not have been convicted. The learned counsel for the state made submissions supporting the prosecution case. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties,
4. It is not disputed that PW1 Aslam, the deceased and the appellants were known to each other; there is also nothing on the record to show that there was any enmity between the appellants and PW 1 Aslam and the deceased. The PW 1 received a serious knife injury. The trial court as well as the High Court have placed reliance on the evidence of PW 1 Aslam on all material aspects. The medical evidence also supports the evidence as narrated by PW 1 as regards the incident. It may be added that there was recovery of two knives from the appellants which were found blood stained. The learned counsel for the appellants stated that this recovery was done much later and much importance could not be given for the same. But the recovery, in this case, coupled with the other evidence on record, supports the prosecution case. As to the place of occurrence the trial court has clearly stated that the incident took place behind Praful Talkies. The High Court has also stated that discrepancy regarding the place of occurrence is not of much consequence as spot map prepared by the patwari revealed that there existed a cinema talkies in the vicinity where the incident took place. It may also be noted that even blood-stained earth was also collected and the same was sent to the forensic science laboratory. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that without the aid of Section 34 IPC the appellants could not have been convicted has no force having regard to the nature and number of the injuries and evidence, which possibly could be caused by the appellants with the different knives. It cannot be said that only one person could cause such injuries. Further when both the courts on proper appreciation of evidence have come to a concurrent conclusion in holding the appellants guilty for the offences, we find no justification or good ground to interfere with the same. Thus, we find no merits in the appeals and consequently the same are dismissed.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free