LexEDWARD versus INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AANDIMADAM POLICE STATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 995 EDWARD v. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AANDIMADAM POLICE STATION (Criminal Appeal No. 707 of 2007) MARCH 11, 2015 A B [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.) C Penal Code, 1860: s.302- Land dispute between the deceased and the accused persons - Appellant and other accused persons attacked victim-deceased with deadly weapons resulting in death of the deceased - Conviction of accused uls.302 based on evidence of sole eye witness D · - High Court modified conviction to s.304 Part II - Appeal against conviction - Held: No ground to doubt reliability of evidence of sole eye witness - Facts proved presence of accused with common intention to attack the deceased - E Interference with the conviction not called for. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: In the case of *Dal;p Singh vs. State of Punjab, it was held that when feelings run high and F there is a personal cause for enmity, there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom the witness has a grudge but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and each case must be judged and governed on its own facts. In this case, there was no G evidence for the eye-witness to be inimical towards the accused. There was no ground to doubt the reliability ' of the evidence provided by PW-3. Even if there is a . 995 H 996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 2 S.C.R. A difference between ocular and medical evidence, it is clear from the facts that the accused were present there with the common intention to attack the deceased. Thus, a difference between ocular and medical evidence will not stand any ground in acquitting the B accused in the present case. [Paras 8, 9 and 10] (999- G-H; 1000-A-D] Da/ip Singh and Ors. State of Punjab* 1954 (1) SCR 145; Bipin Kumar Monda/ v. State of West Bengal (2011) C (2010) 12 SCC 91: 2010 (8) SCR 1036 - relied on. State of Orissa v. Brahamananda Nanda (1976) 4 SCC 288: State of Karnataka v. Venkatesh and Ors. (1992) Suppl.1 SCC 539: Harish Kumar v. State Delhi D Administr~tion (1994) Suppl. 1 SCC 462 - referred to. E F Case Law Reference (1976) 4 sec 288 referred to. Para 5 (1992) Suppl.1 sec 539 referred to. Para 5 (1994) Suppl. 1 sec 462 referred to. Para 6 1954 (1) SCR 145 relied on. Para 8 2010 (8) SCR 1036 relied on. Para 9 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 707 of 2007. From the Judgment and Order dated 16.03.2006 of the G High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. Appeal No. 1540 of 2002. M. N. Rao, Basant R., S. Thananjayan, Promila, Karthik Ashok for the Appellant. H M. Yogesh Kanna, Santha Kumaran, Vanitha C. Giri, EDWARD v. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AANDIMADAM 997 POLICE STATION for the Respondent. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1. These appeals have been filed by accused persons against the judgment and 8 order dated 16.3.2006 passed by the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No.1540 of 2002 by which the High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants. The facts of the case as narrated by the prosecution are briefly stated as under: 2. The deceased Michaelraj and the accused persons were residents of the same Village in Taluk Udayarapalayam c in District Perambalur. There was a land dispute between Michaelraj and the accused persons on account of which D there was enmity between them. Originally, the grand- mother of the deceased Michaelraj executed a settlement deed in favor of Michaelraj which was subsequently can- celled. Thereafter, a portion of the property was executed in favor of the appellant. Despite the settlement deed, the E appellant claimed that his possession of property was dis- turbed by the deceased and his relatives. Therefore, the ap- pellant filed a suit against the deceased and his relatives. The appellant further claimed that even though interim or- ders were passed in the suit, Michaelraj and his relatives F did not allow the appellant to enjoy his possession of the property. 3. On 10.12.1997 at around 7:30 p.m., when Michaelraj along with his friend John Paul was returning from the G house of his father-in-law, the appellant and other accused persons attacked him with deadly weapons. This occurrence was witnessed by John Paul (PW-1) and Anthoni Raj (PW- 3). The deceased sustained injuries and was taken to the hospital in a serious condition. In the meantime, PW-1 went H 998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015} 2 S.C.R. A t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.