DILPESH BALCHANDRA PANCHAL versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2010] 5 S.C.R. 605 · Decided: 29-04-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010) 5 S.C.R. 605 
DILPESH BALCHANDRA PANCHAL 
V. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2215 of 2009) 
APRIL 29, 2010 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND C.K. PRASAD, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 114 - Murder - Caused 
alongwith the 
co- accused - Eye-witnesses to the incident 
A 
B 
- Recovery of weapon of offence - Conviction by Trial court C 
of all the accused - High Court confirming conviction of two 
of the accused - Appeal by appellant-accused -
Held: 
Prosecution spells out involvement of appellant-accused 
beyond doubt- Eye-witnesses were reliable - Non-availability 
of independent witnesses is not fatal to prosecution case -
o 
Medical evidence also supporting prosecution case -
Conviction justified. 
Appellant-accused alongwith two co-accused was 
prosecuted for killing one person. Prosecution case was 
that parents of the deceased were the eye-witnesses to 
the incident; that the accused persons, seeing the eye-
witnesses ran away from the spot leaving behind the 
weapon of offence. The prosecution relied on the 
statement of witnesses, including eye-witnesses; medical 
evidence and evidence of recovery witnesses. Trial court 
convicted all the accused on the charge of murder and 
sentenced them to life imprisonment. High Court 
acquitted one of the accused and convicted the two ' 
including appellant-accused. SLP by one of the 
E 
F 
convicted accused was dismissed in limine. The present G 
appeal was filed by the appellant-accused. 
The appellant-accused contended that the evidence 
of eye-witnesses was not reliable; that the case was not 
605 
H 
606 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 5 S.C.R. 
A supported by independent witness; that medial evidence 
falsified the prosecution case; that leaving behind th~ 
weapon of offence is not a probable story; and that 
sentence of RI for life was not maintainable in law. 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the light of the prosecution evidence 
the involvement of the appellant who is the main accused 
has been spelt out beyond doubt. It is not correct to say 
that it would not have been possible for the eye-
C witnesses to see the incident. It is the conceded p()sition 
that the families of the accused and that of the 
complainant were close neighbours though living on 
different floors. It is also the prosecution case that the 
attack was preceded by a scuffle and shouting and cries 
D for help by the victim which immediately attracted the two 
witnesses out of their a,partment and it was then that they 
saw the entire incident. It is also relevant that the incident 
happened between 8.30 - 9.00 p.m. at which time the 
presence of the witnesses at home would be natural. 
E [Paras 7, 9, 12] [613-E; 610-G; 611-C-E] 
1.2. The mere fact, that no independent witness has 
been examined, does not in any way cast a doubt on the 
eviden~e of the parents of the deceased who would be 
the last persons to leave out the actual assailants and 
F involve some others instead. Independent witnesses are 
never forthcoming and the prosecution must, therefore, 
rely on close associates or relatives of the complainant 
party in order to support the prosecution story. [Para 9) 
[611-E-G] 
G 
1.3. The appellant was the person who had allegedly 
inflicted the knife blows on the deceased. In this view of 
the matter, there is absolutely no doubt that he was the 
primary assailant. It is also clear from the record 
H including the statements u/s. 313 Cr.P.C that it was the 
DILPESH BALCHANDRA PANCHAL v. STATE OF 
607 
GUJARAT 
appellant who had been thrown out from employment by 
A 
PW 1. Ipso facto the motive for the attack was to lie 
primarily on him. [Para 9] [611-G-H; 612-A-B] 
1.4. It is not correct to say that the medical evidence 
falsified the prosecution story and that the number of 8 
injuries did not conform to the statements of the eye-
witnesses. The plea that though only two injuries had 
been caused on the deceased as per the ocular evidence 
but eight had been found by the doctor, is misplaced. The 
doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination, had 
co-related the external injuries with the internal injuries, 
C 
in the course of his evidence. It is significant that injury 
No.1 is only an abrasion and could easily be caused 
during a scuffle or a fall that preceded or followed the 
actual attack. In this view of the matter, there were only 
two effective injuries (i.e. 2 and 3) and this fits in with the 
D. 
prosecution story that only two injuries had 

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