ARJUN AND ANR. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 298 · Decided: 14-02-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 298 
ARJUN AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 206-207 of2017) 
FEBRUARY 14, 2017 
[DIPAK MISRA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.I 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 300 Exception (4), 304 (Part I) -
Prosecution of 3 accused u!s. 302 and 302134 !PC - Conviction 
and life sentence by courts below - On appeal, held: Evidence of 
eye-witness/complainant is reliable - It is further corroborated by 
4 other eye-witnesses and medical evidence - Recovery of weapons 
from the three accused also substantiated prosecution case - The 
prosecution has thus established that the appellants-accused are 
responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased - However, the 
incident occurred due to a sudden fight and thus falls under 
Exception (4) of s. 300 - It is evident from nature of injuries that 
the accused had intention as well as knowledge to cause the injuries 
and hence the case would fall under Part I of s. 304 - Therefore, 
the conviction is altered from s. 302134 to s. 304 (Part I) - Sentence 
of the accused persons reduced to the period already undergone 
i.e. 9 years 11 months. 
s. 304 (Part I) and (Part 11) - Applicability of - Held: In a 
case when there is intent as well as knowledge to cause murder and 
bodily injury, it will fall under (Part]) of s. 304 and if it is only a 
case of knowledge and not the intention, the case would fall under 
(Part II) of s. 304. 
Evidence: 
Related witness - Evidentiary value of - Held: Evidence of 
related witness cannot be discarded for the sole reason that it is 
G 
related or interested - However, the court should scrutinize the 
evidence of such witness with care, as a rule of prudence and not 
as a rule of law. 
H 
Hostile witness - Evidentiary value of - Held: Merely 
because a witness/witnesses have turned hostile in part, their 
298 
ARJUN AND ANR. ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 
299 
evidence cannot be rejected in toto - Such evidence can be accepted 
A 
to the extent their version is found dependable - The court to 
examine such evidence more cautiously. 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 There is no reason to discard the evidence of 
PW-6 for the sole reason that he is related to the deceased and 
that he is an interested witness. Where the prosecution case 
rests upon the evidence of a related witness, the court shall 
scrutinize the evidence with care as a rule of prudence and not as 
a rule of law. The fact of the witness being related to the victim or 
deceased does not by itself discredit the evidence. [Paras 11 and 
12] [305-F, BJ 
Mano Dutt and Am: v. State of Uffar Pradesh (2012) 
4 SCC 79 : (2012] 3 SCR 686 - relied on. 
B 
c 
1.2 All the four eye-witnesses viz. Pws 1, 2, 7 and 8 have 
corroborated that the accused 'P' and 'L' were present. Further, 
D 
according to PW-8, the two accused 
were present and 
immediately on fleeing away from the spot, PW-8 after some 
distance turned back and saw that there were three accused 
persons standing surrounding the deceased. The presence of two 
accused in the beginning and later on joining of the third accused 
E 
'A' is what falls from the evidence of PW-8. Evidence of PW-8, 
thus, corroborates the evidence of PW-6 as to the presence of 
three accused. The presence of appellant-accused 'A' spoken by 
PW-6 is corroborated by the evidence of PW-8. That apart, 
recovery of gandasa from appellant 'A' is an incriminating 
circumstance/evidence against the appellant 'A' and concurrent 
F 
findings recorded by the courts below that appellant 'A' was also 
responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased is based on 
evidence. [Paras 14, 17] [306-C-E; 308-E-F] 
1.3 Though the eye-witnesses PWs 1, 2, 7 and 8 were 
treated as hostile by the prosecution, their testimony insofar as 
G 
the place of occurrence and presence of accused in the place of 
the incident and their questioning as to the cutting of the trees 
and two accused surrounding the deceased with weapons is not 
disputed. The trial court as well as the High Court rightly relied 
H 
300 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
upon the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 7 and 8 to the above said extent 
of corroborating the evidence of PW-6. Merely because the 
witnesses have turned hostile in part, their evidence cannot be 
rejected in toto. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated 
as effaced altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent 
that their version is found to be depend
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.