LexABDUL NAWAZ versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 4 S.C.R. 560 ABDUL NAWAZ v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (Criminal Appeal No. 801 of 2012) MAY 10, 2012 [T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: c s. 300, Exception 4 and s. 304(Part-I) - Scuffle between accused and Head Constable of police in order to release the dinghy from the police -· Accused causing head injury to Head Constable and pushing him into the sea - Dead body of victim recovered from the sea - Held: Pushing a person 0 into the sea with ableeding head injury may not have been with the intention to kill, but it would certainly show the "intention of causing a bodily injury as was likely to cause death''. within the meaning of s. 300 and secondly s. 304(Part- I) - The act of the accused is more appropriately punishable E uls 304 (Part-I) instead of s. 302 as invoked by the courts below - Conviction u/s 302 set aside - Instead accused convicted u/s 304 (Part-I) and sentenced to 8 years RI - Evidence - Minor discrepancies in evidence and recording FIR - Effect of F The appellant and 16 others were prosecuted for commission of offences punishable u/ss 3021392/411/201/ 1208/341/109 IPC. The prosecution case was that at about 23.50 hrs on 19.3.2008, when the policemen PWs 1 and 3 were on patrol duty, they noticed that in two G dinghies tied to a ferry boat stationed at the jetty, diesel was being illegally removed from the ferry boat. On seeing the policemen, the miscreants escaped in one of the dinghies. When some more police personnel reached H 560 ABDUL NAWAZ v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 561 the scene, the Engineer, the Master and the Lskar of the A ferry boat were caught. Head Constable 'S' and PW1 boarded the dinghy left behind by the miscreants. Meanwhile, the other dinghy that had earlier fled away, returned to the spot with four persons on board including the appellant. They got into a scuffle with Head Constable B 'S' to secure the release of the dinghy. The appellant picked up a dao that was lying in the dinghy, inflicted a blow on the head of 'S' and pushed him into the sea and escaped in the dinghy. The dead body of 'S' was recovered from the sea by the Coast Guard Divers on c 20.3.2008. The trial court convicted the appellant u/s 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. A-1 to A- 3 were convicted and sentenced u/s 332/34. The remaining accused charged with commission of offences punishable u/ss 392/409/411 were, however, acquitted. 0 The High Court allowed the appeals of A-1 to A-3 and dismissed the appeal of the appellant. In the instant appeal, it was, inter alia, contended for the appellant that the prosecution case was primarily based on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2; that the evidence E of PW 1 was not worthy of credit and could not, therefore, be relied upon; that PW 2 was not an eye- witness and had not corroborated the version given by PW 1; that there was no evidence to prove that the injury stated to have been inflicted by the appellant was in the F ordinary course of nature sufficient to cause the death; that even according to the prosecution case itself, there was a sudden fight between the deceased and the appellant and his companions bringing the case under Exception 4 to s. 300 IPC. G Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The trial court considered the evidence on record carefully and came to the conclusion that the H 562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 4 S.C.R. A return of the appellant to recover the second dinghy, a scuffle taking place between the appellant and the deceased Head Constable on board the second dinghy, and the deceased being hit with a 'dao' by the appellant and being pushed into the sea was proved by the B evidence on record. [para 9] [568-F-H] 1.2. In appeal, the High Court re-appraised the evidence adduced by the prosecution and affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court as regards the presence and return of the appellant to recover the C second dinghy left behind by the miscreants, the assault on the deceased with a 'dao' and his being pushed into the sea. The High Court found that the depositions of PWs1 and 2 to the extent they proved the above facts were cogent and consistent hence acceptable. There D does not seem to be any palpable error in the approach adopted by the High Court. The discrepancies indicated in the recording of the FIR, or the offence under which it was registered are not of much significance and do not a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.