LexASHARAM AND ANR. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~ ASHARAM AND ANR. A v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH APRIL 25, 2007 [S.H. KAPADIA AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.] B t Penal Code, 1860: .. ss.3071149-Attempt to murder-By unlallful assembly-By causing c deadly injuries-Five accused including the two Appellants-Conviction of Appellants by High Court uls 3071149 reversing the order of acquittal of Trial Court-Propriety of-Held, proper-No reason to doubt credibility of the three injured witnesses, P Ws I, 2, & 3-Their evidence fully corroborated by medical evidence-PWs 2 and 3 substantially corroborated evidence of PWI, particularly with regard to the place at which the jive accused had D assembled, the manner in which the assault was carried out, the weapons \ carried by the assailants and the manner in which the injuries were inflicted- Moreover, the accused fled when they thought that PW I had died when in fact he had become unconscious on account of injuries-Jntentiorz to murder was evident-Offence under s.3071149 IPC stood proved. E Evidence-FIR-Appreciation of-Held: It is not a substantive piece of evidence-It cannot contradict the testimony of the eye witnesses even though it may contradict its maker. According to the prosecution, PWs 1, 2 and 3 were returning to their ~ village after sowing seeds in their field, when Appellants alongwith three F others came out of hiding in the field and assaulted PWl. When PW2 and PW3 came to the rescue of PWl, they were also beaten up. Trial Court held that there were serious contradictions in the evidence of PWl, 2 and 3 and accordingly acquitted the Appellants giving them benefit G of doubt. High Court however held that the complainant party was badly beaten _, .-< and intention of the accused party stood duly established and, accordingly convicted the Appellants under Section 307/149 IPC. Hence the present ~ppeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court 607 H A 608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 5 S.C.R. HELD: I. The evidence of the Doctor (PW-10) indicates that on " 1.11.1988 he had medically examined PWl, who was brought to Primary Health Centre, Bijadehi. He was brought by Constable Panja of Police Station, Bijadehi. The said Constable had come to the Primary Health Center with a requisition note. Further, in his evidence PW-10 has stated that even PW3 B was brought to the Center by Constable Panja on 1.11.1988 under the requisition slip. In the circumstances, the argument that FIR was made 15 days after the incident cannot be accepted. The requisition slips ~arried by the Constable indicates that the FIR preceded 1.11.1988 when P)\'1 and his wife PW3 were brought to the Center by Constable Panja of Police Station, I Bijadehi. There is no discrepancy regarding the contents of the FIR. It is C well settled that an FIR is not a substantive piece of eviden~. It cannot contradict the testimony of the eye witnesses even though it m1y contradict its maker. (Para 18) (614-C, D, E, F] . • D Dharma Rama Bhagare v. The State of Mah°'hrashtra, (1973) 3 SCR 92, relied on. Shyama Charan and Ors. v. State of UP., [1984) All.L.J. 1303, referred to. 2.1. The evidence of complainant party and the other witnesses mainly PW-5, PW-6 and PW-9 shows the manner in which the assault was carried out. They categorically deposed that the assailants were armed with ballam E and la this. The manner in which the injuries were inflicted have also been elaborately prescribed, moreover, PWl, 2 and 3 were injured "itnesses. Their evidence was fully corroborated by medical evidence. There is no reason to doubt their credibility. The evidence furth.ershows that the Appellant no. 1, came with the ballam, he tried to pierce the ballam into abdomen of PWl; F that if PW I would not have caught hold of the ballam, Appellant had almost succeeded in piercing the spear into the abdomen; and lastly, the evidence shows that the accused fled when they thought that PW I had died when in fact he had become unconscious on account on injuries. Therefore, the weapons were used by the accused as intended to be used. Further there were minor omissions in the statement under Section 161 CrPC. There were no G contradictions. The injuries have been proved. This is not a case where there are no injuries. There were 16 injuries on the body of PWl, 4 on PW3 and 7 on PW2. They were hospitalized for 15 days. [Para 18] [615-G; 616-A, B, CJ 2.2. Even assuming for the sake of argument that there are H inconsistencie
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.