LexD.V. SHANMUGHAM AND ANR. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
D.V. SHANMUGHAM AND ANR.
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
APRIL 25, 1997
(G.N. RAY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 307, 302/149, 324-Murde!'-{]rievous
injuries on head of accused-Prosecution failed to explain such injuries-It
is Obligatory on the prosecution to explain injuries 011 the accused when those
C are of grievous nature-Al/ eye witnesses are related to deceased and thus
could be interested-No explanation as to how blood-stained stones were
found at far off place from occurrence-Prosecution witnesses were not sure
about the place of occurrence-Independent witness not examined though
present at the time of occurrence-Hence, inference can be drawn that the
D prosecution did not present true version as regards role played by accused--Co-
accused who was ascribed same role as accused given the benefit of doubt by
High Court-Held, accused/appellant no. 1 is also entitled to benefit of doubt
and his conviction and sentence set aside-However, enough evidence for
conviction of appellant No. l-Hence his conviction upheld.
E
Criminal triah4ppreciation of evidence-Independent witnesses avail-
able but not examined-Only related witnesses were examined by the prosecu-
tion-Held, in such a situation the prosecution case has to be scrutinised with
more care and caution.
Constitution of India-Article 136-Appreciation/reappraisal of
F evidence-Supreme Court can examine the evidence if appreciation of such
evidence by the court below on the face of it appears to be erroneous causing
miscarriage of Justice.
According to prosecution, accused and the complainant were from
G same village. Some incident had happened between them in respect of
which a complaint had been lodged and on this account there was Ill feeling
between both the groups.
On 22.9.90 Accused A-1 and A-2 on some misunderstanding picked
up a quarrel with N and challenged him. Tile said N was a relative of the
H complainant. One the same day at 10 PM, when the complainant PW-1 and
988
~·
D.V. SHANMUGHAM v. STATE
989
the deceased M were returning from a theatre the five accused persons
formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked PW-I and M
with deadly weapons. While A-1 caught hold of deceased M, A-2 stabbed
him with a knife on the abdomen and M fell down wounded. when PW-1
intervened he was also stabbed with a knife by A-2 on his left hand and
A·l dealt a blow with a stick on his right hand. PW-1 then raised an alarm
and his relatives including S, the other deceased came out of their house
and rushed towards M. The accused persons also attacked these people
and while A-3 caught hold of S, A-2 stabbed him with knife on his abdomen
and caused fatal injuries. The injured persons were taken to the hospital.
M died during the same mid-night on account of shock and haemorrhage
as a result of injuries sustained by him. S.I. recorded the statement of the
S, who died on the next day. On the basis of the information given by PW-1
the investigation proceeded and charge sheet was filed against all the five
accused.
A
B
c
The Additional Sessions Judge convicted all the accused other than
A-2 under Sections 302/149, 148, 307/149, 324/149 IPC and A-2 was con-. D
victed under Sections 302, 307, 324, 324/149 IPC and all of them were
sentenced accordingly.
In appeal, High Court set aside the conviction of the accused A-3, A-4
& A-5 and acquitted them of all charges and also set aside the conviction E
and sentence of A-1 under Sections 148, 307/149, and 324/149 IPC. His
conviction under Section 302/149 was modified to one under Section 302/34
and his sentence for imprisonment for life was confirmed. His conviction
under Section 324 for causing hurt to PW 2 was also maintained. So far as
A-2 is concerned, his conviction and sentence passed under Section 148 and
324/149 was set aside. However, the conviction and sentence passed by the
F
Sessions Judge for the offence under section 302 and 307 IPC was con-
firmed by the High Court. Hence, this appeal.
The appellants contended that prosecution was guilty of suppressing
the genesis and the origin of the occurrence in as much as no explanation
has been offered for the injuries sustained by the appellants, more par-
G
ticularly, the injuries to A-1 which was grievous in nature and the prosecu-
tion was also guilty of shifting of place of occurrence. It was also contended
that the role ascribed to A-1 and A-3 being identical and the HigExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.