LexDHARMENDRA KUMAR @ DHAMMA versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 218 : 2024 INSC 480 Dharmendra Kumar @ Dhamma v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 2806 of 2024) 08 July 2024 [Surya Kant* and K. V. Viswanathan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration High Court if justified in upholding conviction and sentence of the appellant under ss. 302/34 IPC; the contradictions or discrepancies and the absence of blood group classification or inconclusive FSL results on the recovered weapon, if detrimental to the prosecution’s case; the Investigating Officer’s failure to obtain a fitness certificate from the medical officer, if would invalidate the consideration of the statement of the deceased recorded u/s. 161 CrPC before his death, as a ‘dying declaration; and disclosure statement made by the appellant leading to the discovery and subsequent seizure of the knife, if admissible in evidence. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302/34 – Conviction and sentence under – On facts, dispute over construction of wall – Verbal abuses hurled at the complainant – Two persons who constructed the wall physically assaulted by the opposite party, the appellant inflicted knife blow to one, and later both of them succumbed to their injuries – Appellant convicted u/ss. 302, 147, 148, and 149 and sentenced to life imprisonment – High Court upheld the appellant’s conviction u/s. 302/34, however, acquitted him u/ss. 147 and 148 – Correctness: Held: No contradictions or discrepancies in the prosecution case that would compel to take a view different than that of the courts below – When the testimonies of eyewitnesses are consistent, unimpeachable, and duly corroborated by medical evidence or the recovery of incriminating material like the weapon used, the deficiencies, if any, in the recording of FIR alone do not constitute a valid ground to overturn the conviction or undermine the prosecution case – Non-reading of contents of FIR to the complainant would not effect the prosecution case – Presence of appellant on the place * Author [2024] 7 S.C.R. 219 Dharmendra Kumar @ Dhamma v. State of Madhya Pradesh of occurrence established – Disclosure statement by the appellant leading to the discovery and seizure of the knife admissible in evidence – Knife injury can be attributed to the appellant – Absence of blood group classification or inconclusive FSL results on the recovered weapon would not effect the prosecution case – Also, mere non-obtainment of a medical fitness certificate would not deter the court from considering a properly recorded statement u/s. 161 CrPC, to be a dying declaration – Thus, the order passed by the High Court upheld – Evidence.[Paras 44, 51, 58, 61, 69, 70] Evidence – Contradictions in the prosecution case – Omission on the part of the Investigating Officer in marking a spot where incident took place, on the site plan – Effect: Held: Mere omission on the part of the Investigating Officer does not deflect the prosecution case – Site plan merely denotes the location of the incident without implying further details – In light of the fact that the persons who had seen that to which they have testified, due weightage must be given to their first-hand version – Their evidence cannot be jettisoned merely because the I.O. forgot to describe the room on the spot map – It is a case where eyewitnesses corroborated each other; their depositions are reinforced by deceased himself in his statement recorded u/s. 161 CrPC, and the location of the incident is depicted on the spot map as a `brick room’ – Thus, stands established that there was another Jhuggi where the deceased sought refuge and was eventually assaulted – So-called contradiction fails to invade the corpus delicti. [Paras 33, 34] First information report – Non-reading of contents of FIR to the complainant – Effect: Held: Subject FIR fully satisfies all the ingredients of s. 154 CrPC – During the cross-examination, the complainant-informant claimed that the Police neither read out the FIR to her nor did it mention the contents of her statements which were recorded by the Police – Assuming it to be correct, such omission did not cause any prejudice to the appellant – Not a case where the appellant was not provided with a copy of the FIR or the charge sheet, which could have hindered his ability to effectively cross-examine the informant – Also no suggestion that he was not present at the scene, that he did not participate in the incident, or that he was falsely impli
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.