LexBALRAJE @ TRIMBAK versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 [2010] 6 S.C.R. 764 BALRAJE@ TRIMBAK v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No.1978 of 2008) MAY 10, 2010 [P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860: s.302- Single knife blow on vital part i.e. chest of the deceased caused by appellant resulting in C death of deceased - Conviction of appellant under s.302 by courts below - Interference with - Held: Not called for - There were categorical statements of eye-witnesses pro11ing the involvement of appellant in the offence - Acquittal of other co-accused would not affect the conviction of appellant as o there was cogent, credible and truthful evidence of witnesses against him - Evidence. Evidence: Testimony of related/interested/injured witnesses - Evidentiary value of. E Prosecution case was that there was enmity between the family of the appellant-accused and the family of the deceased. On the fateful day, at 11.30 p.m. when deceased was sleeping in his house, appellant called the deceased to open the door. When the deceased opened F the door, his wife PW-2 also followed him. Appellant pulled deceased out and gave knife blow on his chest. On hearing the commotion, PW-1 residing on the first floor of the same building came down. Appellant inflicted a knife blow on his leg. A-4 also inflicted blow on the G chest of the deceased. The three other accused beat the deceased with wooden pieces. Thereafter appellant and the other accused persons ran away in a jeep. The deceased and PW-1 were taken to the hospital. Deceased died at 3.30 a.m. The Trial Court convicted the appellant H 764 BALRAJE @ TRIMBAK v. STATE OF MAHARAS~HTRA 765 and the three other accused under Sections 302134 IPC. A High Court dismissed the appeal in respect of the appellant and allowed the appeal of the other three accused persons. Hence the appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court B HELD: 1. The evidences of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 clearly proved the involvement of the appellant. Though some of the witnesses turned hostile, it did not affect the prosecution case because of the clear and categorical statements of PWs 1, 2 and 4. Taking note of the fact that C the name of the appellant was mentioned in the earliest report i.e. FIR and evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4, the High Court was fully justified in accepting the case of the prosecution in so far as the appellant was concerned. [Paras 10, 11] [773-8-D] D Baul v. State of UP. 1968 (2) SCR 450, distinguished. Radha Mohan Singh@ Lal Saheb & Ors. v. State of UP. (2006) 2 SCC 450; Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (2008) 8 SCC 270, referred to. E 2. In view of the fact that one blow was on the vital part i.e. chest and the deceased died due to the said injury, the courts below were fully justified in convicting him under Section 302 and imposing life sentence. [Para F 12] [744-A-B] 3. The witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, whose testimony was relied upon, clearly deposed that appellant assaulted the deceased with a knife. In .his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. a G specific question was put to the appellant and he was made aware of the basic ingredients of the offence and the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him. Thus, he can be convicted under ~ection 302 IPC for having committed the murder. Law H 766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 O] 6 S.C.R. A is fairly well settled that even if acquittal is recorded in respect of the co-accused on the ground that there were exaggerations and embellishments, yet conviction can be recorded if the evidence is found cogent, credible and truthful in respect of another accused. The mere fact that B the witnesses were related to the deceased cannot be a ground to discard their evidence. In law, testimony of an injured witness is given importance. When the eyewitnesses are stated to be interested and inimically disposed towards the accused, it has to be noted that it c would not be proper to conclude that they would shield the real culprit and rope in innocent persons. The truth or otherwise of the evidence has to be weighed pragmatically. The court would be required to analyse the evidence of related witnesses and those witnesses who 0 · are inimically disposed towards the accused. But if after careful analysis and scrutiny of their evidence, the version given by the witnesses appears to be clear, cogent and credible, there is no reason to discard the same. Convictio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.