LexDEV RAJ versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 323 DEV RAJ v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (Criminal Appeal No. 423 of2015) JULY25,2016 [S.A. BOBDE AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s.302 - Murder - Prosecution case that appellant and his brother assaulted the victim-deceased and ajier killing him threw his body along with motorcycle below the bridge - Trial court convicted the appellant and his brother uls.302 - High Co~rt 'upheld the conviction of the appellant however set aside the conviction of his brother - On appeal, held: There was overwhelming evidence to prove that there was animosity between the deceased and the appellant over land - Eye-witnesses stated that appellant gave lathi blows to the victim-deceased - The fact of assault by the appellant was throughout maintained by the witnesses - Even though witnesses were declared hostile they maintained their stand that they saw appellant and accused assaulting the deceased - Prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was accused who had caused homicidal death of the deceased - No interference with the order of conviction. Evidence: Testimony of hostile witnesses - Evidentiary value, discussed. Constitution of India : Art.136 - Scope of interference, discussed. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. PW.7 wife of the deceased, PW.8, PW.13, PW.18, PW.3 and PW.IO all had stated that there was a land dispute between the parties. Witness PW.to had also stated that with regard to the land dispute the leg of the appellant was broken and there was animosity between the deceased and the appellant and accused. The plea of the appellant was that PW.13 and PW.16 having been declared as hostile witnesses their evidence ought · not to have been relied by the courts below more so when another eye-witness docs not say that deceased was assaulted by the 323 A B c D E F G H 324 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R. appellant. The evidence of a witness who has been declared hostile can be relied if there are some other material on the basis of which said evidence can be corroborated. More so, that part of evidence of a witness as contained in examination-in-chief, which remains unshaken even after cross-examination, is fully reliable even though the witness has been declared hostile. The trial began against six accused persons. PW.13 in his examination- in-chief took the name of the appellant alone who was stated to have assaulted the deceased. PW-13 did not mention in his examination-in-chief about the presence of other accused which may be a reason for the prosecution to get the witness declared as hostile. Even in the cross-examination the witness repeated that he heard the appellant saying "Maro Sale Ko" who had assaulted the deceased and the deceased cried "Bachao Bachao''. The factum of assault by the appellant was throughout maintained by the witness. Thus, even though witness was declared as hostile witness his evidence so far as the role of the appellant is unshaken. Similar was the evidence of PW.16. The statement of PW-8 of assault on the deceased when read with the evidence of PW.13 and PW.16 clearly indicates thatit was the appellant who had assaulted the deceased which caused death of the deceased.[Paras 15, 19, 20, 21) [329-H; 330-A-B; 332-D-G; 333- E-F] 2. There being clear evidence of stopping of the motorcycle near pakkar tree and ensuing quarrel and assault on the appellant, the theory of accident as suggested by the appellant was wholly unreliable. The prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was accused who had caused homicidal death of the deceased. [Para 24) (334-B,F] 3. The jurisdiction which this Court exercises under Article 136 has its own self-imposed restrictions. Even though the powers of this Court under Article 136 are very wide, but in criminal appeals, this Court would not interfere with the concurrent findings of facts, save in very exceptional cases. The findings recorded by the courts below from the evidence on record fully justify the conviction of accused. The findings recorded by the courts below can neither be said to be perverse nor contain any such illegality which may render the findings not reliable. [Paras 25, 26, 27) [334-G; 335-F; 336-B-C) DEVRAJ v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana (1976) 1 SCC 389: 1976 (2) SCR 921 ; Khujji v. State of MP. (1991) 3 SCC 627 : 1991 (3) SCR 1 ; Vino
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.