LexBUDHWA ALIAS RAMCHARAN AND ORS. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• _, ... BUDHWA ALIAS RAMCHARAN AND ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH OCTOBER 5, 1990 A [KULDIP SINGH AND M.FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.] B Indian Prmal Code, 1860: ss. 147, 149 & 302: Conviction under- Melee-Particularization of blows given impossible-Nature of injuries received by victim important-Need for observance of utmost care and caution in sifting evidence. The appellants were convicted for offences nnder Ss. 147, 149 and 302 IPC for murdering a villager. The prosecution case was that motivated.by group rivalry the accused persons numbering over fdleen attacked the deceased with tabbals and lathis while be accompanied by bis mother, PW 1, and sister, PW 5, was on bis way to a nearby village to supply milk. As a result of the injuries sustained the deceased died on the spot. When PW 1 tried to intervene, she too was assaulted. She lodged the FIR thereafter the same day against the appellants and others. At the trial PW 4 and PW 6 deposed to having seen appellants Baran, Bhagau, -Karan and Parsadi anned with lathis and tabbals hurriedly going towards the place of occurrence ahead of the decease.. at a short distance. The medical evidence disclosed that the deceased had sustained in an seven injuries, two incised wounds on the scalp, two contusions and three bruises. c D E The trial court found that the appellants were members of an F unlawful assembly and death of the deceased was caused by them in prosecution of a common object. The High Court on appeal agreed with the findings of the trial court. lu the appeal by special leave, it was contended for the appellants that the courts below had failed to exercise the necessary care and G caution that was required in scrutinising the evidence of the two eye witnesses who were close relations of the deceased and deeply interested in involving the appellants on account of enmity, and that in the absence of independent corroboration the conviction based on the testimony of these witnesses was unwarranted. Disposing oftbe appeal, the Court, IOI H 102 SUPREME. COURT REf JRTS [ 1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R. ,~. HELD: 1.1 It is ~ID accepted proposition that in the c:.se of group . - A rivalries and enmities, there is a general tendency to ihvolve as many persons of the opposite faction as possible by merely naming them as having participated in the assault. The court, therefore,. bas in alhucb cases to sift the evidence with utmost care and caution and convict only ,those persons against whom the prosecution witnesses can be safely B relied upon without raising any element of doubt. [107C·D] 1 Baldev Singh v. Sr ate of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 464; Raghubir Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1971 SC 2156 and Muthu Naicker v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1978] 4 SCC 385, referred to. ' c 1.2 The conviction of the appellants was principally based on the evidence of PW 1 and PW S, the mother and sister of the deceased. Though their evidence was not to he discarded as interested, necessary caution should have been observed in accepting the same in upholding the conviction of all the appellants. [104H; lOSA] -. D 2.I In a melee, as in the instant case, where several people are. giving blows at one and the· same;tiine it will be impossible to parti· cularize the blows. If any witness attempts to do it, his veracity is doubtful. But, It is simpler to make an omnibus statement that all the accused assanlted with their weapons because that obviates close_cr:oSs- examination. Therefore, the nature of injuries sustained by the victim E assnmes importance. [lOSH; 106A] 2.2 PWs 1 and S stated that the accused persons surrounded the. victim and each one of them assaulted him with the weapon they bad .. PW 1 stated that some of the assailants had given more than one blow, They did not state who caused the head injuries. They have not attemp- : F ted to attribute any one of the injuries to any particular assailant. The - evidence was in general tenns'" If a group of more than fifteen persons had encircled the viCtim and simultaneously attacked him with tabbals and lathis without any resistance or any intervention, there would have been certainly corresponding injuries of the concerted attack on the Q person of the victim. The medical evi~ence shows that besides the two incised wounds on the scalp which proved fatal the deceased had only five minor jnjurieson his person. [lOSE-GJ 2.3 When the several blows with lathis and tabbals could p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.