LexBABLE @ GURDEEP SINGH versus STATE OF CHATTISGARH TR.P.S.O.P. KURSIPUR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 517 BABLE @ GURDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF CHATTISGARH TR.P.S.O.P. KURSIPUR (Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2010) JULY 10, 2012 [SWATANTER KUMAR AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 rlw s.34 - Murder- Conviction A B of appellant and two others u/s.302 rlw s.34 by trial court - High Court while upholding the conviction of appellant C acquitted the other two accused - Plea of appellant that the informant PW1 had turned hostile and the FIR not being a substantive piece of evidence, discredited the entire prosecution case; that the dying declaration made by the deceased was not reliable and that the injuries found on the o person of appellant were not explained by the prosecution - Held: Merely because PW1 had turned hostile, it cannot be said that the FIR lost all its relevancy - PW11 and PW14 substantially supported the FIR which further stood corroborated by the medical evidence and the statements of E other witnesses - Dying declaration made to PW14 was reliable and cogent - Appellant cannot derive any benefit from acquittal of the other two accused as the State did not prefer any appeal against the decision of High Court ·~ Moreover, besides the dying declaration, there a/so existed other F circumstances which supported the view in favour of guilt of the appellant - Prosecution did not render any explanation as to how the appellant suffered injuries but the onus was still on the appellant to prove that his explanation (that he suffered injuries due to armed assault by the deceased) was correct - There was apparent contradiction of serious nature as to the G weapon used in committing the said assault against the appellant - One fact that completely stood established was that appellant was present at the place of occurrence and also that 517 H 518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A he had a fight with the deceased - These two circumstances provided full corroboration to the dying declaration, the statements of PW11 and PW14 as also the other material evidence led by the prosecution - Conviction of appellant accordingly upheld. B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.313 - Object of - Held - The legislative scheme contained under the provisions of s.313, Cr.P.C. is to put to the accused all the incriminating material against him and it is equally important to provide an opportunity to the accused to state his case - It is the option C of the accused whether to remain silent or to provide answer to the questions asked by the Court - Once the accused opts to give answers and, in fact, puts forward his own defence or the events as they occurred, then the accused is bound by such statement and the Court is at liberty to examine it in light D of the evidence produced on record. The trial court convicted the appellant (A-1) and two other accused (A-2 and 3) under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC for causing the death of one person in furtherance E of their common intention and sentenced them to life imprisonment. On appeal by the accused persons, the High Court held that the oral dying declaration made by the deceased was not corroborated by the FIR as the names of A-2 and A-3 were not mentioned in the latter and F that there was no legal and clinching evidence to implicate these two accused persons and acquitted both of them. In regard to the appellant, the High Court sustained the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. G In the instant appeal, the appellant challenged his H conviction contending that the injuries found on his person were not explained by the prosecution; that the informant PW1 had turned hostile and the FlR not being a substantive piece of evidence, discredited the entire BABLE@ GURDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF CHATTISGARH 519 TR.P.S.O.P. KURSIPUR -case of the prosecution; and that the dying declaration A was not corroborated by other prosecution witnesses and as such the courts below could not have relied thereupon. Dismissing the appeal, the Court B HELD: 1. Once registration of the FIR is proved by the Police and the same is accepted on record by the Court and the prosecution establishes its case beyond reasonable doubt by other admissible, cogent and relevant evidence, it will be impermissible for the Court C to ignore the evidentiary value of the FIR. The FIR, Ext. P1, was duly proved by the statement of PW10, Sub- Inspector. According to him, he had registered the FIR upon the stateme
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.