LexDAULATRAM S/O SADRAM TELI versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 734 ... A DAULATRAM S/O SADRAM TELi v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (Criminal! Appeal No. 1493 of 2008) B SEPTEMBER 19, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 302 and 307: c Assault and murder - Conviction - Acquittal of co-ac- cused - Conviction of accused based on evidence of relative eye witnesses - Correctness of - Held: Evidence of relative eye witnesses cannot per se be discarded - Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made - In the instant D case, evidence of PW3 and PW5, relative witnesses, found cogent, credible and reliable - Acquittal of co-accused can- not be a ground for holding conviction of other accused infirm - Hence, Courts below rightly convicted the accused on the basis of evidence of eye witnesses - Testimony of relative E eye witnesses - Reliance upon - Scheduled Caste and Sched- uled Tribes (Atrocities) Act, 1989 - S.3(2)(5). According to the prosecution, on the fateful day, ap- pellant and another armed with weapons entered into the F field and started abusing the complainant, PW3, and his '( father in filthy language and attacked his father with the weapons. Another accomplice 'D' armed with sickle also ran after him. On reaching the village, he informed about the incident to his sister and other relatives and later sue- cumbed to the injuries. PW3 lodged an FIR. Police inves- G tigated the matter and submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant and other two accused persons. Trial Court found two accused persons guilty of committing the of- '? fence punishable uls.302 IPC and s.2(v) of the SchedulP-d Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Atrocities) Act, 1289 and H 734 DAULATRAM S/O SADRAM TELi v. STATE OF 735 CHHATIISGARH imposed life sentence on them. However, third accused A 'D' was convicted for committing the offence punishable u/s.352 IPC. The High Court affirmed the,conviction and sentence against the appellant; however, co-accused was • • acquitted. Hence the present appeal . Dismissing the appeal, the Court B HELD: 1.1 Merely because the eye-witnesses are fam- ily members their evidence cannot per se be discarded. (Para - 7) [739-C] 1.2 Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of c a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to '"' adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find D out whether it is cogent and credible. (Para - 7) [739-D-E] Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab AIR (1953) SC 364; Gu/i Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (1974) 3 SCC 698 and Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras AIR (1957) E SC 614 - referred to. 1.3 The ground that the witness being a close rela- tive and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. (Para - 10) [740-D] ' ,. F Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab AIR (1953) SC 364 - relied on. 1.4 Merely on surmises the Court should not casti- gate a prosecution for not examining other persons of the locality as prosecution witnesses. Prosecution can be expected to examine only those who have witnessed G "'. the events and not those who have not seen it though the neighborhood may be replete with other residents also. (Para -14) [741-G-H] H 736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 13 S.C.R. A Masa/ti and Ors. v. State of U.P AIR (1965) SC 202; State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh AIR (1973) SC 2407; Lehna v. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 76; Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381; Babula/ Dhagwan Khandare and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 10 SCC 404; Salim B Saheb v. State of M.P (2007) 1 SCC 699; Vinay Kumar Rai and Anr. v. State of Bihar (2008) AIR sew 5541 and State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram and Ors. AIR (1999) SC 1776 - re- ferred to. 2. The evidence of PWs. 3 and 5 is cogent, credible c and reliable. The fact that co-accused has been acquit- ted, cannot be a ground for holding that appellants' con- viction is infirm. (Para -15) [742-B] Case Law Reference D AIR (1953) SC 364 Referred to Para - 8 (1974) 3 sec 698 Referred to Para - 9 AIR (1957) SC 614 Referred to Para - 9 E AIR (1953) SC 364 Relied on Para - 8 AIR (1965) SC 202 Referred to Para - 11 AIR (1973) SC 2407 Referred to Para - 12 (2002) 3 sec 76 Referred to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.