CHAUDHARI RAMJI BHAI NARASANGBHAI versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 390 · Decided: 10-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHAUDHARI RAMJJBHAI NARASANGBHAI 
v. 
ST ATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 10, 2003. 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASA Y AT, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 304 Part II, 325 and 447-Conviction 
under-Acquittal by trial court-Conviction by High Court-Correctness of-
C Held: Order of High Court does not suffer from any patent error of law or 
perversity of approach and total lack of evidence to warrant interference. 
Evidence Act, 1872--Section 145-Applicability of-Held: Applicable 
when same person makes two contradictory statements-When there is alleged 
contradictions between one prosecution witness vis-a-vis statement of other 
D witness no adverse inference can be drawn. 
Criminal Trial : 
Witnesses-Testimony--Evidentiary value of-Held : When particular 
facts established by testimony of trustworthy and reliable witnesses, it need 
E not be further proved through other witnesses as it would amount to multiplicity. 
Related witness-Evidentiary value-Held: Related witnesses evidence 
is not discarded if it is reliable-Cautious and careful approach is required--
Also the Court is to appreciate evidence in light of other evidence on record. 
F 
According to the prosecution, complainant's uncle's son-appellant 
and respondent No.2 and 3 armed with weapons entered the field of the 
complainant and attacked his father, brothers and caused them injuries. 
The motive of the incident was enmity between the parties. At the time of 
the incident complainant was near the place of occurrence and he 
witnessed the incident, and lodged an FIR. Injured persons were taken to 
G the hospital. Complainant's father succumbed to his injuries. Complainant, 
his mother, his brothers were examined. Defence version was to the effect 
that the incident did not take place in the field but the complainant's side 
had gone to the narrow road leading to the field and obstructed the cart 
and in the scuffie complainant's father fell down and bullock cart ran over 
H 
390 
C.R. NARASANGBHAI v. STA TE OF GUJARAT 
391 
him. Trial Court held that their testimony is not trustworthy and reliable A 
as there was material contradictions between the evidence of different 
witnesses and acquitted the accused. High Court set aside the acquittal 
and convicted the appellant and respondents 2 and 3. Respondents 2 and 
3 were granted benefit of probation. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis B 
of the dispute and its version lacks credibility; that though the witnesses 
have stated the weapon of assault to be a 'kudal', there is no mention in 
the evidence of the complainant about the said weapon which was allegedly 
used; that the post mortem report and the medical evidence completely 
rule out the oral evidence about the use of 'kudal'; that the prosecution C 
had a duty to obtain clarification regarding the side of weapon used; that 
.. 
the contradictions highlighted by trial Court related to the ocular evidence 
and the medical evidence and not contradictions between the evidence of 
different witnesses; that when the benefits of probation were extended to 
the two co-accused persons there was no plausible reason to adopt a 
different standard with regard to the appellant 
D 
Respondent-State contended that the trial Court had acted on 
impermissible premises without keeping in view the correct position in law; 
that the factual position was also not properly analysed; that though the 
co-accused persons have been granted benefit of probation, and no appeal 
has been filed challenging that part of the High Court's judgment; and E 
that the appellant cannot take advantage of grant of probation as his 
definite role in the crime was established and he was the main brain behind 
the crime. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. High Court has applied the correct principles in law while 
directing conviction of appellant by reversing judgment of acquittal passed 
by the trial Court The conclusions arrived at are not shown to suffer from 
any patent error of law or perversity of approach and total lack of 
evidence to warrant interference. (399-E) 
2.1. High Court found that the trial Court's approach was erroneous. 
F 
G 
It was of the view that if a particular fact stands established by the 
evidence of trustworthy and reliable witnesses, the record is not to be 
burdened by examining other witnesses for proving the same fact as it 
would amount to multiplicity only. Even if a witness is 

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