LexBRAHM SWAROOP & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[201 O] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1 BRAHM SWAROOP & ANR. A V. STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 1235 of 2005) OCTOBER 26, 2010 B [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.5. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302134 and 307134 - Prosecution under - 6 accused causing death of 4 persons - Trial court convicted accused Nos. 2 and 3 u/s. 302!34_J3lld accused C Nos. 1 and 4 ulss. 302134 and 307134 -Accused Nos. 5 and 6 acquitted of all the charges i.e. uls. 148, 302, 149, 307, 396, 424 /PC and s. 25 of Arms Act - High Court confirming the conviction order and setting aside the acquittal order, convicted accused Nos. 5 and 6 u/ss. 302134 and 307134 and o upheld the acquittal uls. 25 of Arms Act - On appeal, held: In view of the trustworthy evidence of the injured eye-witness and other eye-witnesses, conviction of the accused persons is justified - Acquittal u/s. 25 was correct - Arms Act, 1959 - s. 25. E Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 17 4 - Inquest report - Evidentiary value of - Held: Inquest report cannot be treated as substantive evidence - It can be utilized only for contradicting the evidence of witnesses of the inquest - Omissions in the inquest report are not sufficient to put the F prosecution out of court. Witnesses:· Evidence of witnesses - Discrepancies in - Effect of - G Held: Minor discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case, cannot itself prompt the court to reject the evidence in its entirety. Eye-witness - Evidentiary value of - Held: Evidence of 1 H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A eye-witnesses cannot be discarded if their names do not figure in the inquest report - If the evidence of eye-witnesses is credible, question of motive becomes irrelevant - Motive. Related witness - Evidentiary value of - Held: 8 Relationship of the witness with the deceased is not a factor which effects his credibility - However, in such cases the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse the evidence so as to find out its credibility. Injured witness - Evidentiary value of - Held: Generally C such witness is considered to be reliable - Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness. Criminal Trial - Delay in sending FIR to the Magistrate - Effect of - Held: An unexplained delay by itself may not be 0 fatal. Appeal - Appeal against acquittal - Interference with - Scope of - Discussed. Appellants-accused, alongwith other accused, were E prosecuted for having caused death of 4 persons. The prosecution case was that deceased No. 1 had an enmity with the family of accused No. 1. On the day of the incident, accused Nos. 1 to 6 surrounded the deceased persons and the informant (PW1), and started firing at F them with their respective weapons. Deceased No. 1 died on the spot. Deceased Nos. 2 and 4 sustained serious injuries and as a result, became unconscious. Deceased No. 3 and PW1 also sustained injuries. Accused No. 5 took away the rifle of deceased No. 2 and accused No. 6 G took away the licensed gun of one 'G' who had kept the same in his jeep. PW2 and one 'S' were also the eye- witnesses to the incident. Deceased Nos. 2, 3 and 4 later succumbed to the injuries. The trial court acquitted accused Nos. 5 and 6 of all the charges i.e. u/ss. 148, 302, H BRAHM SWAROOP & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. 3 149, 307, 396 and 424 IPC and u/s. 25 of the Arms Act, A 1959. Accused Nos. 3 and 2 were convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 302/34 IPC and were awarded death sentence. Accused Nos. 1 and 4 were convicted for the offences punishable u/s. 302/34 and 307/34 and were awarded imprisonment for life. Accused persons as well · B as the State filed appeals before the High Court against the orders of conviction and acquittal respectively. The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the accused persons with the modification that the death sentence was altered to life imprisonment. Allowing the appeal filed c by the State, the High Court convicted accused Nos. 5 and 6 for the offences punishable u/ss. 302/34 and 307/ 34 IPC and awarded life imprisonment. In the instant appeals, the appellant-accused contended that the prosecution did not disclose the D genesis of the case correctly; that the inquest was manipulated; that the use of the weapons alleged were not established; that there was delay in sending the special report to the Magistrate; that the deceased Nos. 2 and 4 were history-sheeters an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.