ANAND RAMACHANDRA CHOUGULE versus SIDARAI LAXMAN CHOUGALA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 11 S.C.R. 14 · Decided: 06-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
ANAND RAMACHANDRA CHOUGULE
v.
SIDARAI LAXMAN CHOUGALA AND OTHERS
(Criminal Appeal No. 1006 of 2010)
AUGUST 06, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
Alteration of conviction from u/s. 302/34 to s. 304 Part I/34 –
There was a verbal duel followed by scuffle between the parties –
Prosecution alleged that accused persons assaulted the other party,
which also led to a homicidal death – Trial court convicted all the
four accused u/s 302/34 IPC – High Court held that the assault
was made on spur of the moment without premeditation and that
both sides had suffered injuries and altered conviction u/s.304 Part
I – Two accused were acquitted as their presence was found doubtful
– On appeal, held: Parties were related to each other and there was
a land dispute between them – The verbal duel was followed by a
scuffle is a concurrent finding of fact by two Courts – Accused
persons had also lodged an FIR with regard to the same occurrence,
which was not investigated – Police failed to explain why the said
FIR was not investigated – Further, accused were also admitted in
the hospital for treatment with regard to injuries sustained in the
same occurrence but the injury report was not brought on record –
The facts were suppressed by the prosecution, which creates
sufficient doubts and prosecution was unable to answer the same –
The benefit of doubt must follow unless the prosecution is able to
prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt – No reason to interfere
with the order of the High Court.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. On perusal of materials on record, the
relationship between parties and the existence of a land dispute
regarding which a civil suit was also pending are undisputed facts.
The fact that a verbal duel followed by scuffle took place between
the parties culminating in injuries is a concurrent finding of fact
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 14
14
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
15
by two Courts. The fact that the accused also lodged an F.I.R.
with regard to the same occurrence stands established by the
evidence of PWs. 19 and 22, the Investigating Officers, who have
admitted that the respondents-accused had also lodged BRPS,
which was not investigated by them.  Similarly, PW 11, the Police
Constable, deposed that two of the accused were admitted in the
District Hospital and that he was posted on watch duty.  The
occurrence is of 07.06.2002 and respondents-accused nos. 1 and
2 were discharged on 11.06.2002.  Their injury report has not
been brought on record by the prosecution and no explanation
has been furnished in that regard. [Para 8] [19-A-C]
2. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the
allegations beyond all reasonable doubt. In contradistinction to
the same, the accused has only to create a doubt about the
prosecution case and the probability of its defence.  An accused
is not required to establish or prove his defence beyond all
reasonable doubt, unlike the prosecution.  If the accused takes a
defence, which is not improbable and appears likely, there is
material in support of such defence, the accused is not required
to prove anything further. The benefit of doubt must follow unless
the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond all reasonable
doubt. [Para 9] [19-D-E]
3. The fact that a defence may not have been taken by an
accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. again cannot absolve the
prosecution from proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
If there are materials which the prosecution is unable to answer,
the weakness in the defence taken cannot become the strength
of the prosecution to claim that in the circumstances it was not
required to prove anything. [Para 10] [19-F]
4.  The fact that an F.I.R. was lodged by the accused with
regard to the same occurrence, the failure of the police to explain
why it was not investigated, coupled with the admitted fact that
the accused were also admitted in the hospital for treatment with
regard to injuries sustained in the same occurrence, but the injury
report was not brought on record and suppressed by the
prosecution, creates sufficient doubts which the prosecution has
been unable to answer. [Para 11] [20-A-B]
ANAND RAMACHANDRA CHOUGULE v.
SIDARAI LAXMAN CHOUGALA AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
16
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
Sunil Kundu v. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 4 SCC
422 :  [2013] 5 SCR 924 – relied on.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Faqirey (2019) 5 SCC 605;
Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State 

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