LexABDUL SAYEED versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 311
ABDUL SAYEED
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 1243 of 2007 etc.)
SEPTEMBER 14, 2010
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
A
B
ss. 302134 - Prosecution for murder of two persons and c
for injuries caused to others - Prompt lodging of FIR -
Accused named in FIR - Eye-witnesses to the incident -
Motive established - Trial court convicting the accused ulss.
302, 147 and 148 - On appeal High Court acquitting all the
accused ulss. 147 and 148 and convicting the appellants-
D
accused u/s. 302 with the aid of s. 34 - Other co-accused
acquitted of all the charges - On appeal, held: In the facts of
the case, courts below rightly concluded that the appellants-
accused were responsible for the offence.
s. 34 - Common intention - Applicability of - Discussed.
E
Criminal Trial - Failure to frame proper charge - Effect
of - Held: Absence of a charge by itself is not prejudicial,
unless the accused is able to establish that defect in framing
of the charge has caused real prejudice - There is no bar in
F
law on conviction with the aid of s. 34 /PC in place of s. 149
/PG, if there is evidence to show that the accused shared
common intention and no apparent prejudice is shown to
have been caused thereby - On facts, it was permissible for
High Court to convict the accused u/s. 34 and non-framing
G
the charge thereunder is not fatal to the prosecution - Code
of criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 215, 216, 218, 221 and 464
- Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 34 and 149.
311
H
312
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A
Evidence - Ocular evidence vis-a-vis medical evidence
- Held: In case of contradiction between ocular and medical
evidence, ocular evidence has greater evidentiary value - But
if medical evidence completely rules out the ocular evidence,
ocular evidence may be disbelieved -
On facts, the
B discrepancy between the ocular and medical evidence is
probable and such discrepancy cannot go in favour of the
accused.
Witness - Injured eye-witness - Evidentiary value - Held:
Deposition of such witness to be relied upon unless there are
C strong grounds for rejection thereof on the basis of major
contradictions and discrepancies - On facts, evidences of
eye-witnesses are reliable as they are corroborated by version
of other witnesses.
D
The 5 appellants, alongwith the other co-accused
were prosecuted for having killed two persons and for
causing injuries to others. The prosecution case was that
on the date of occurrence, some of the accused molested
a girl. Her mother complained about the incident to 'C'.
E He went to the accused persons to advise them and also
scolded them. As a result, in the evening, the 17 accused
came armed with deadly weapons and attacked 'C'. When
his two sons ('S' and PW1) and PWs 2 and 4 came to his
rescue, 'S' and PW1 were also attacked by the accused.
F Both 'C' and 'S' died on the spot. One of the accused died
during the investigation and two of them had absconded.
14 accused were put to trial for offences punishable ul
ss. 148, 302 and 323 IPC and in the alternative ulss. 3021
149. 324/149 and 323/149 IPC. One of the absconded
G accused, (appellant-accused 'I'), later surrendered and he
was tried separately.
H
The trial court convicted accused A-11, A-9, A-6, and
A-5 u/s, 148 IPC; A-9 was convicted u/s. 147 IPC, A-9 and
ABDUL SAYEED v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 313
A-11 were further convicted u/s. 302 IPC for committing
A
murder of deceased 'C'. A-5 and A-6 were convicted u/s.
302 IPC for committing murder of deceased 'S'. A-7 was
convicted u/s. 324 IPC for causing injuries to PW1 and
A-1 was· convicted u/ss. 304 (Part II), 323 and 147 IPC for
causing injuries to the deceased 'S'. Accused 'I' was also
B
convicted u/s. 148 and 302 IPC, in the separate trial.
In the appeals filed by the convicted accused, the
High Court convicted the 5 appellant-accused u/s. 302/
34 IPC, setting aside their conviction u/ss. 147/148 IPC.
The other co-accused were acquitted by the High Court.
C
The High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the State
against acquittal of some of the accused u/ss. 302/149
IPC.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellants-
D
accused contended inter-alia that the High Court could
not have convicted the accused with the aid of s. 34 IPC,
having set aside their conviction u/ss. 147/148 IPC and
also because no charge was framed u/s. 34 IPC norExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.