LexC. MAGESH AND ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010) 5 S.C.R. 623 C. MAGESH AND ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1028-1029 of 2008) APRIL 30, 2010 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: A B s. 302 - Charge sheet against 49 accused persons - c Conviction of 7 accused - Upheld by High Court Four accused additionally found guilty by Hifjh Court - On appeal, held: There was consistency in evidence regarding role played by 5 of the accused in the commission of offence - Concurrent finding of facts by courts below against them not 0 interfered with - HowAver, as there was inconsistency, improper identification and absence of specific role attributed to the other 2 accused, their conviction is not sustained. s.302 - Acquittal of four accused by trial court - High Court ordered conviction relying on dying declarations - Held: E Dying declarations were not in question-answer form and endorsement by the doctors not made in the beginning of the statements that the declarants were mentally fit - Moreover, no reason given as to why dying declarations were not recorded in the presence of Magistrate - Since legality and F correctness of dying declarations was doubtful, High Court erred in relying on the same in ordering conviction of the 4 accused - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.380 - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.32. FIR - Evidentiary value of - Discussed. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.378 - Appeal against acquittal by trial court - Scope of interference - Discussed. 623 G H 624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 O] 5 S.C.R. A Criminal jurisprudence: Evidence to be evaluated on the touchstone of consistency - Consistency is the keyword for upholding the conviction of an accused. Prosecution case was that the accused persons and 8 the deceased were employees of BPL Company. There was labour unrest in the company. The accused persons were active members of trade union. Some of the workers of the company were not taking part in the demonstration and in the strike called by the Union: and were attending to their work. They were provided transport and police C protection by the company. On the day of incident, a bus carrying some of the loyal employees of the company was stopped. A-1 and A-2 shouted slogans in favour of Union and against the loyal employees of the company. A-6 and A-47 and others pelted stones on the bus. A-46 stood at D the door of the bus to prevent employees from getting out of the bus. A-15 and A-33 were supplied kerosene by A- 32 which was sprinkled on the bus and the passengers. A-33 put bus on fire. Some of the passengers of the bus sustained serious burn injuries and were shifted to E hospital. Dying declarations Exh. P29 and P30 were recorded in the presence of doctor. Charge sheet was submitte,d against 49 accused. Trial court convicted in all only 7 accused i.e. A-1, A-2, A-15, A-25, A-32, A-33 and A- ;46 under Sections 302, 307, 435, 427, 143 and 148 r.w. F Section 149 IPC and awarded life sentence. The convicted accused filed appeal before High Court. State also filed appeal for enhancement of sentence of life imprisonment to death sentence and against the acquittal of other 42 accused persons. High Court uph~ld the G conviction of 7 accused and also convicted A-4, A-8, A- 16 and A-34 for the same offence. Hence the appeals. H Dismissing the appeals of A-1, A-2, A-15, A-32, A-33 and allowing the appeals of A-4, A-8, A-16, A-25, A-34 and A-46, the Court C. MAGESH AND ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 625 HELD: 1. It is settled law that an FIR is not a A substantive piece of evidence. However the FIR cannot be given a complete go-by since it can be used to corroborate the evidence of the person lodging the same. On careful examination of the deposition of PW-42, informant, it was found that even though he had denied B lodging of complaint with the police, but examination of deposition of PW-56, Circle Inspector of Police showed that PW-42, had come to the police station along with a typed complaint, which was then registered and FIR was lodged. Subsequently it was sent to the court of c Magistrate. Thus it was not possible on account of the said discrepancies in the evidence to ascertain the origin of the typed complaint. Thereby, the possibility of the complaint being dictated by the company officials cannot be totally negated. Moreover, there was no secondary 0 evidence led to ascertain the veracity of the FIR. Under such circumstances,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.