LexDINESH SAHU ALIAS DINNU versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 929 : 2024 INSC 740 Dinesh Sahu Alias Dinnu v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No(s). 960 of 2021) 22 August 2024 [Bela M. Trivedi* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Concurrent conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860, if justified. Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.34 – Concurrent conviction under – If to be interferred with: Held: No – Evidence of witnesses cannot be totally discarded merely because they turned hostile to the case of prosecution during the course of trial – One of the panch witnesses duly supported the case of the prosecution as regards the recovery of the alleged weapon/article, Khukri, from the house of the appellant – Merely because the said witness knew the deceased, it cannot be said that he was an interested witness or an unreliable witness – Doctor who carried the post-mortem of the deceased, also opined that the injuries on the body of the deceased were possible with the alleged weapon khukri – Futher, as per the FSL report, the blood group of the deceased was present on the khukri – Courts below discussed the evidence in detail and found the appellant guilty – Prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 10, 13] List of Acts Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860; Concurrent conviction; Guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt; Evidence; Witnesses; Hostile witnesses; Panch witnesses; * Author 930 [2024] 8 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Recovery of the alleged weapon/article; Khukri; Interested witness; Unreliable witness; Material witnesses; Blood group of the deceased. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 960 of 2021 From the Judgment and Order dated 04.07.2019 of the High Court of M.P. Principal Seat at Jabalpur in CRA No. 1867 of 2007 Appearances for Parties Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, Adv. for the Appellant. Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, Adv. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Bela M. Trivedi, J. 1. The instant appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 04.07.2019, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 1867 of 2007, whereby the High Court has confirmed the judgment and order dated 16.08.2007, passed by the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in S.T. No.43 of 2007, convicting the present appellant Dinesh Sahu alias Dinnu and the co-accused Raju Sharma alias Awadhesh Sharma alias Naresh Sharma, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer Life Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell was that, one Vinod Sai (since deceased) was running a light refreshment stall under the name and style of Ajay Tea Stall Baba Board Chowraha. There was a previous enemity between the said Vinod Sai (since deceased) and Raju Sharma alias Awadhesh Sharma alias Naresh Sharma. On 10.09.2004, a quarrel took place between the above parties and both lodged reports against each other. Driven by the same, [2024] 8 S.C.R. 931 Dinesh Sahu Alias Dinnu v. The State of Madhya Pradesh on 11.11.2006 at 07:00 p.m., when Kamal Sanwale (PW-6) and Vinod Sai (since deceased) were at the shop, the said Raju Sharma alias Awadhesh Sharma alias Naresh Sharma armed with sword and Dinesh Sahu alias Dinnu (the appellant herein) armed with a khukri, came on the spot. Both of them inflicted several blows on Vinod Sai. As a result, thereof, he fell down and died on the spot. 3. According to the further case of the prosecution, on hearing the ruckus, Kamal, Kalim, Anil, Salman and Santosh rushed to the spot to save Vinod Sai but the appellant- Dinesh Sahu alias Dinnu threatened them by showing khukri, and thereafter both the accused, namely, Raju Sharma and Dinesh Sahu, fled away from the spot. At that time, Shashi Bai (PW-13), the mother of Vinod Sai was coming to the shop of her son to take charge of the shop and she witnessed the entire incident. 4. At the instance of the informant Kamal Sanwale (PW-6), Dehati Nali
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.