LexBHOLA@ PARAS RAM versus STATE OF H.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 750 A BHOLA@ PARAS RAM ..,,-.... v. STATE OF H.P. Criminal Appeal No. 331 of 2009 B FEBRUARY 18, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] ),.. Penal Code, 1860: ~ c s.304 (Part 1)134- Prosecution u/s. 302134-Acquittal by trial Court- Conviction uls. 304 (Part-1)134 by High Court- holding that acquittal was in- disregard of evidence of eye- witnesses and motive-On appeal, held: Conviction order was right as it was passed after proper analysis of the evidence. D Evidence-Appreciation of- Evidence having omissions, .,. contradictions and discrepancies-Held : Such ~vidence ;i cannot be discarded in its entirety-Truth should be sifted from untruth-Minor discrepancies not to be given under importance if it does not go to the root of the matter and shakes basic; E version of prosecution witnesses. t,; Appellant- accused along-with two co-accused was tried for offence punishable u/s. 302/34 IPC. Trial Court )- _acquitted them. High Court reversing the acquittal, .. F convicted them u/s. 304 (Part I) IPC in terms of Exception 4 to s. 300 IPC, holding that acquittal order was passed over-looking the evidence of eye- witnesses (PWs 2 to 5) and that of father of the appellant-accused to whom the deceased and his wife (eye-witness) had told that one G of the co-accused had beaten the deceased; and that there also existed motive for the assault. ~ -. In appeal to his Court, appellant-accused contended that conviction could not have been based on the H 750 BHOLA@ PARAS RAM V. STATE OF H.P. 751 ~- evidence of eye-witnesses as the same had omission, A contradictions and inconsistencies. Dismissing the appeal, the Court ;t HELD : 1.1 The High Court has analysed the evidence and has rightly come to the conclusion that the guilt of the B accused persons has been established. [Para-7] [ 755-G] 1.2 Undue importance should not be attached to -...( omissions, contradictions and discrepancies in evidence • which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the -i basic version of the prosecution witnesses. A witness c cannot be accepted to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident verbatim. Minor discrepancies were bound to occur in th~ statement of witnesses. Even if there are some omission, contradictions and discrepancies, the entire evidence cannot be D ~ discarded. After exercising care and caution and sifting )o. the evidence to separate the truth from untruth, exaggeration, embellishments and improvements, the· court can come to a conclusion as to whether the residual evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. [Para 6-5] [ 755-C-D; 755-E-F] E Sohrab and Anr. v. The State of M.P AIR 1972 SC 2020; State of UP v. M.K. Anthony; AIR 1985 SC 48; Bharwada ~ Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR (1983) SC 753- I " relied on Case Law Reference F AIR 1972 SC 2020 Relied on Para 5 AIR 1985 SC 48 Relied on Para 5 AIR (1983) SC 753 Relied on Para 6 CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal G )" No. 331 of 2009 From the Judgement and Order dated 27.05.2008 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal No. 150of1994. H 752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 2 S.C.R. A Anil Nag, Narender Tyagi, for the Appellant. . .,........ Naresh K. Sharma for the Respondent. ' The Judgement of the Court was delivered by I ~ B DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division ).. Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court setting aside the ..,. " acquittal recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, ' c Kangra,· Dharamshala. Three accused persons Bhola, Prithu and Dharmu faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The High Court by the impugned judgment set aside the order of acquittal and directed each of D the accused persoris guilty of offence punishable under Section .J.. 304 Part I, IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each rl. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: I E t= Fandi Ram (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') owed certain amount to Prehlad Chand (PW-10), merchant of village Boh on account of purchases made on credit. Appellant j.. is soh of PW-10. On 14.2.1992 at 8.00 a.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.