LexBHAGCHANDRA versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 765 [2021] 9 S.C.R. 765 765 BHAGCHANDRA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal Nos. 255-256 of 2018) DECEMBER 09, 2021 [L. NAGESWARA RAO, B. R. GAVAI AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w. s.201 and 506-B – Prosecution case that appellant committed murder of his two brothers and a nephew – There was a property dispute of appellant with his both brothers – On the day of incident, PW-1-complainant had gone to attend the call of nature – While returning, she saw the appellant armed with an axe getting out of her house – When she went inside her house she saw her brother-in-law lying dead in outer room – His neck was cut – When she came in the courtyard, she saw her son dead, having injuries on his neck and head – She followed the appellant towards the field – She saw the appellant assaulting her husband with the axe – When she tried to stop the accused from assaulting the deceased, the accused abused her and told her to go away and threatened her – Her husband also died – Her other two children (PW-2 and PW-3) in house, who saw the incident escaped from the house – The trial Court convicted appellant for offences u/s.302 r/w. s.201 and s.506B IPC and awarded him death sentence – His death sentence was confirmed by the High Court – On appeal, held: It is clear from the evidence of PW-1, that she had personally witnessed the appellant assaulting deceased-husband – It is further clear from the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 that they have personally witnessed the appellant assaulting their brother and uncle – The evidence of these three witnesses is duly corroborated by the other witnesses – PWs 4, 5 and 6 corroborated the testimony of PW-1 – PW-6 corroborated testimony of PW-2 and 3 – Upon perusal of the evidence of the witnesses as a whole, the evidence is cogent, reliable and trustworthy – As far as capital punishment is concerned, the trial court as well as the High Court has only taken into consideration the crime but have not taken into consideration the criminal, his state of mind, his socio-economic background etc – The appellant comes from a rural and economically poor A B C D E F G H 766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R. background – There are no criminal antecedents – The appellant cannot be said to be a hardened criminal – This is the first offence committed by the appellant – The certificate issued by the Jail Superintendent shows that the conduct of the appellant during incarceration was satisfactory – It cannot be said that there is no possibility of the appellant being reformed and rehabilitated – Therefore, the death sentence awarded to the appellant is converted to life imprisonment for a period of 30 years. Partly allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. It could be seen that what is required to be considered is whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. It has been held that minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. It has been held that the prosecution evidence may suffer from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there, but that is a shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. What is important is to see as to whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof. It has been held that there are always normal discrepancies due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition, shock and horror at the time of occurrence. It is the duty of the court to separate falsehood from the truth in every case. [Para 31][779-E-H; 780-A] State of Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna Master and Others (2010) 12 SCC 324 : [2010] 9 SCR 563 – relied on. 2. This Court is of the view that the minor discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are not of such a nature which would persuade this Court to disbelieve their testimonies. It is further to be noted that the witnesses are rustic villagers and some inconsistencies in their depositions are bound to be there. [Para 32][780-A-B] 3. This Court has held that in case of rustic witnesses, some inconsistencies and discrepancies are bound to be found. It has been held that the inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses A B C D E F G H 767 should not be blown out of proportion. To do so
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.