BHAGWATI PRASAD versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2009] 16 S.C.R. 126 · Decided: 03-12-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 126 
A 
BHAGWATI PRASAD 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1368 of 2003) 
B 
DECEMBER 3, 2009 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN, V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DEEPAK 
VERMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: s.304 (Part II) - Conviction undElr, 
c 
based on evidence of eye-witnesses - Interference with -
Held: Case not made out for interference - Attack witnessi3d 
by eye-witnesses in broad daylight- Injuries on eye-witnesses 
not explained - Minor discrepancies would not affect the whole 
prosecution story - Conviction upheld - Sentence of five 
years not harsh. 
D 
Prosecution case was that on the day of incident PW-
2, PW-3 and deceased had gone to irrigate their field frcim 
the canal. When they op~ned the canal for irrigation, 
appellant and other accused persons came there, armed 
E with spear and lathis and stopped them from opening the 
canal. As the complainant PW-2 insisted on taking water, 
A-1 gave lathi blow to him. Deceased intervened. A-6 gave 
a spear blow on his back and deceased fell down. The 
other accused persons A-2, A-3, A-5 also gave lathi blows 
F on the deceased. Deceased succumbed to injuries on 
~ 
way to hospital. 
The trial Court found irregularities in the prosecution 
version and acquitted the accused persons. High Court 
convicted the appellant under Section 304 (II) and A-1 and 
G A-4 under Section 323 IPC. A-2, A-3 and A-5 were 
acquitted. Appellant was awarded 5 years rigornus 
imprisonment while A-1 and A-4 were sentenced to 
undergo simple imprisonment. Hence the present appoal. 
H 
126 
BHAGWATI PRASAD v. STATE OF M.P. 
127 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1. The witnesses specifically explained that 
the main canal was on the Northern side of the two 
adjacent fields of the complainant. Bamba, i.e., outlet of 
canal is from that canal on the Northern side and the 
8 
water then comes in that small outlet, which feeds 
Eastern side field of the complainant. Adjacent to that 
field is another field of the complainant and naturally, in 
order to draw water from Bamba, there has to be an 
aqueduct, which would go up to the adjacent field of the C 
deceased. It is at that spot that the incident must have 
taken place. This situation was explained by PW-2. PW-3 
specified that when water was opened from cool, then 
mar-pit had taken place. The vocabulary and the terms 
used by the villagers could always be confused by the 
police when they recorded their statements. Much D 
importance cannot be given to such minor discrepancies. 
The broad features of the evidence were that the 
complainant party wanted to irrigate their field and for 
that they wanted to open the aqueduct for supplying 
water to their field and it was at that spot that the incident E 
took place. Once the evidence of the two eye-witnesses, 
who themselves were injured eye-witnesses, was 
accepted by High Court after the detailed consideration 
and when they asserted that the incident took place in 
the field of the complainant and when placement of the 
F 
field of the complainant was fixed by the evidence, the 
evidence becomes immediately acceptable and then such 
minor discrepancy whether it was spot 'A' or spot 'B', 
would be pushed to the background. Such minor 
discrepancy cannot affect the whole prosecution story. 
G 
It is only when the defence is able to establish that the 
change of the spot was deliberate and such a change 
was so substantial as would affect the whole prosecution 
story, that such discrepancies assume importance. In the 
H 
128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A present case, it was clearly an open and shut case where 
~ 
the two eye-witnesses in the broad day light witnessed 
the attack by the accused persons. There was absolutely 
no variance in the version of the two eye-witnesses to the 
effect that it was the appellant, who gave the spear blow 
B on the back of the deceased. Both the witnesses, PW-2 
and PW-3 were injured and there was no explanation for 
their injuries. [Para 11] [137-A-D; 139-D-H; 140-A-C] 
Rachamreddi Chenna Reddy v. State of A.P. 1999 (3) 
c sec 97; Lilaram (Dead) through Duli Chand V. State of 
Haryana & Anr. 1999 (9) SCC 525; State of Rajasthan v. 
Hanuman 2001(1) SCC 337; Munshi Prasad & Ors. v. State 
of Bihar 2002(1) SCC 351; Shankar Mahto v. State of Bihar 
2002(6) sec 431 - referred to. 
D 
2. In the medical certificate, age of the injuries was 
mentioned as 24 hours. What was meant was that the 
injuries could have been caused within 2

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.