LexDR. MOHAMMAD KHALIL CHISTI versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 13 S.C.R. 777 DR. MOHAMMAD KHALIL CHISTI v. STATE OF' RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 634 of 2012 etc.) DECEMBER 12, 2012 [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 324 - Death of one and injuries A B to persons on complainant as well as accused side - Cross- FIRs - Accused convicted ulss. 302 and 324 rlw. s. 34 /PC C by courts below - Appeal by three accused - Held: Evidence suggests that accused were also victims of armed aggression at the hands of the deceased and complainant party - Non- explanation of the injuries on the accused shows that prosecution suppressed the real genesis of the occurrence - D The two sets of evidence led by the prosecution being discrepant with each other, the accused would have the benefit of such discrepancy - Accused can be held responsible only for their individual acts and not for the acts with the aid of s. 34 - In view of their individual acts, the E appellants can only be convicted uls. 324 - Their sentence reduced to period already undergone. Criminal Trial: Non-explanation of injuries on the accused -Effect of - F Held: Non-explanation of the injuries on accused leads to the inferences: (1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the occurrence;(2) that the witnesses who denied the presence of the injuries, are unreliable; (3) that if defence version explains the injuries, it creates doubt on the G prosecution case - The non-explanation assumes greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one - 777 H 778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R. A However, the non-explanation of the injuries may not affect the prosecution case, where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, that it outweighs the effect of the non- explanation. B Contradictory Evidence - Effect of - Where prosecution leads two sets of evidence each one contradicting and striking at the other, accused would have the benefit of such situation - Both sides can be convicted for their individual acts and C normally no right of private defence is available to either party. Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Scope and ambit of - Held: Article 136 confers discretionary power to be exercised sparingly to interfere in cases where grave miscarriage of justice has resulted - It does not confer a right D of appeal - The Court in exercise of its powers under Art. 136 not to reopen the findings of the High Court, when there are concurrent findings of facts, no question of law is involved and the conclusion is not perverse. E The Incident In question In the present appeals, reoulted In death of one person and Injuries to some, on both sides. Cross FIRs were flied by both the parties. The appellants-accused along-with accused 'F' were Implicated In FIR No. 9011992. In the cross-case, six F accused were prosecuted. The trlal court, In the present case convicted all the accused uls. 302 and 324 r/w. s. 34 IPC. They were awarded llfe sentence. High Court confirmed their conviction and sentence. The accused In the cross-case were tried separately · G and were convicted by the trlal court ulss. 3071149, 148 and 3241149 IPC. The appeal against the order Is atlll pending before High Court. Instant appeals were flied by A-1, A-2 and A·3. H Disposing of the appeals, the Court DR. MOHAMMAD KHALIL CHISTI v. STATE OF 779 RAJASTHAN HELD: 1.1 The analysis of the prosecution case has A led two sets of evidence. The evidence adduced suggests that the accused in the present appeals are to some extent victims of armed aggression at the hands of the deceased and his companions. The evidence of the witnesses show that the complainant's party were armed B with sword, hockey sticks etc., hurled abuses, threw stones on the inmates and exhorted to kill A-2 and A-4. Therefore, the appellants are justified in claiming that the complainants group was responsible for the Incident and the Injuries caused to them. [Paras 30 and 15] [794-G; c 805-F-H; 806-A] 1.2 PW-3, PW-6, PW-13 and PW-18, the eye-witnesses did not offer any explanation to the admitted Injuries received by A·4 and A-3. In the absence of any explanation by the prosecution, they can be held guilty D of suppressing the real genesis of the occurrence. No doubt,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.