AKHTAR & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 771 · Decided: 09-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 5 S.C.R. 771 
AKHTAR & ORS. 
A 
-· 
v. 
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1590 of 2007) 
... 
APRIL 9, 2009 
B 
[S.B. SINHA, B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND 
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860- ss. 148, 3021149, 3021149, 3071149 c 
and 3241149 - Assault resulting in death of two and injuries 
to two - Motive established - Testimony of two injured eye-
witnesses - Corroborated by medical evidence Hostile 
..... 
witness also corroborating the injured eye-witnesses as 
_, 
regards date, time and place of occurrence - Genuineness 
of post-mortem report and injury report proved - Non-
D 
examination of doctor -
Acquittal by trial court - Conviction 
by High Court - On appeal, held: The e_yidence of the case, 
establish the involvement of the accused -
Minor 
contradictions would not render the trial fatal - Conviction 
· confirmed. 
E 
Appellant-accused alongwith three other accused 
were prosecuted u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC. 
Prosecution case was that there was a dispute between 
the complainant and accused party over a piece of land. F 
When the complainant party was ploughing the disputed 
land, the accused party came armed with deadly 
weapons. The assault resulted in death of two persons 
and injuries to two persons. Trial Court acquitted all the 
accused. During pendency of the appeal before High G. 
Court three of the accused died and the appeal as 
regards them abated. High Court convicted the appellant-
accused. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
771 
H 
772 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
HEL0:1. It was a day light incident, the motive of 
accused was also established on record. There is 
concurrent finding of the trial court as well as of the High 
Court that there did exist enmity between the complainant 
party and the accused regarding ownership and 
B possession on a particular piece of land. PW-2 and PW-
3 in their deposition have stated that on account of 
dispute and litigation with regard tc• the piece of land, the 
accused bore enmity against them (complainant) and the 
accused were on the look out to kill them (complainant). 
c [Para 12] [779-0, E] 
2. Merely because PWs 2 and 3 were related to the 
deceased cannot be a ground for non-acceptance of their 
evidence, which otherwise was found to be trustworthy. 
It is true that these two witnessies are related to the 
" 
D deceased but at the same time they were also injured 
witness~s. It is extremely difficult to believe that the 
injured witnesses who themselves got injured and 
whose close relatives lost their lives would shield the real 
culprits and name somebody else only due to some 
E enmity. The defence had ample opportunity to cross-
examine these two injured eye-witnesses but records 
show that no suggestions were put to them as to how 
they received the injuries, mentioned in the medical 
reports. In fact, various documents filed by the defence 
F with respect to litigation among themselves itself give the 
unmistakable impression that there was indeed motive to 
attack the deceased and the injurE1d witnesses.[Para 14] 
[780-0, E, F] 
G 
3. Though PW-4, another eye-witness who was the 
driver of the tractor on that day at the place of occurrence 
was declared hostile, he substantially corroborated the 
prosecution version to the extent of the date, time and 
place of the incident as deposed by the two injured eye-
H witnesses. Further, even if the recovery of the pistol has 
AKHTAR & ORS. v. STATE OF UTIARANCHAL 
773 
) 
not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the testimony A 
,, 
of the two injured eye-witnesses, which is quite 
consistent and has further been corroborated by the 
medical evidence, cannot be disbelieved. [Para 15) (780· 
G; 781-A, BJ 
Krishan v. State of Haryana 2006 (12) SCC 459; B 
Surender Singh v. State of Haryana 2006 (9) SCC 247 and 
M.P. v. Mansingh 2003 (10) SCC 414, relied on. 
4. Non-examination of the concerned medical officers 
is not fatal for the prosecution. There is no denial of the c 
fact that the defence admitted the genuineness of the 
injury reports and the post-mortem examination reports 
--.< 
before the trial court. So the genuineness and 
"""' 
authenticity of the documents stands proved and shall 
_, 
be treated as valid evidence u/s. 294 Cr.P.C. It is settled D 
-. 
position of law that if the genuineness of any document 
-¢ 
filed by a party is not disputed by the opposite party it 
can be read as substantive evidence under sub-

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.