LexGURJIT SINGH ALIAS GORA AND ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 976 A GURJIT SINGH ALIAS GORA AND ANR. B c v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No.519 of 2010) MARCH 10, 2015 [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 rw s.34 - Murder - Prosecution case that appellant-accused along with his brother, armed with spades inflicted injuries to the victim- Parents of the accused exhorted their sons to commit the 0 crime on account of enmity between the parties - Plea of self defence and sudden provocation by the accused and his brother since the victim had injured their father - Trial court convicted the appellant u/s. 304 Part II, however, acquitted his brother - High Court convicted the appellants . E uls. 302 rw s. 34 - On appeal, held: Circumstances of the case pointed out to the commission of the crime u/s. 302 - High Court, after going through the entire evidence, came to the comet conclusion that the two blows were caused by accused and his brother, both armed with spade and who F had been exhorted to kill the victim by their parents - It is accepted that the injury on the father of the accused is se/f- inflicted, in all likelihood - Further, there was inordinate delay in seeking medical attention by the father - Also the father refused to undergo radiological examination of the G injuries and did not tell the doctor as to how and why he got the injuries which was wholly unnatural - Non- explanation of injuries not fatal to the prosecution case - Defence version that the appellant attacked the victim H 976 · GURJIT SINGH ALIAS GORA v. STATE OF HARYANA 977 because the victim attacked his father with spade cannot A be accepted - Further, the failure to corroborate the existence of spade was not explained - Also statement of the relatives of the victim could not be disbelieved only because they were relatives of the deceased victim - Thus, the order passed by the High Court upheld. B Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 In appeal, the High Court reassessed the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that it c cannot be said to be the duty of the prosecution in the circumstances to explain injuries on the person of the accused, GD(father) particularly, since GD neither offered himself for radiological examination nor had he disclosed the history of his injuries to the doctor. The o High Court opined that the non-explanation of injuries is insufficient to discard the case of the prosecution, if it otherwise inspires confidence and is worthy of credence. The High Court disagreed with the trial court and held that there is no reason to disbelieve the E statement of the brother of the deceased and the widow, only because they were near relations of ihe deceased. It is settled law, that the statement of a · relative of the deceased cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he or she is an interested party. [Para F 16] (986-F-H; 987-A] Anwar Ali v. State of U.P (2011) 15 SCC 360; Karlik Malhar v. State of Bihar 1995 (5) Suppl. SCR 239 : (1996) 1 SCC 614; Ashok Rai v. State of U.P. (2014) 5 SCC 713 G - referred to. 1.2 The circumstances of the case pointed out to the commission of the crime under Section 302 IPC. There is no doubt about the occurrence having taken H 978 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 2 S.C.R. A place, in which JS was killed by the accused and that his injuries were caused by 'kassis.' There is clear evidence that the accused party comprised of GD, his wife along with their sons GS and SS who were armed with 'kassis.' There are two injuries made by the B 'kassis'; on the back of the head and the other on the face of the deceased. The eye-witnesses accounts of PW13 and PW14, who were undoubtedly present, in no uncertain terms reveals that JS was attacked by the accused party i.e. GS and SS. PW14 stated that the C accused GS gave a 'kassi' blow on the back of the head of JS, as a result of which he fell. Further, that the second 'kassi' blow was given on the right side of the face of JS. The inference drawn by the trial court that PW14 intended to name GS, as the person who also D caused the second blow is unwarranted. The acquittal of SS on that ground is also not sustainable. Some element of confusion was sought to be created in the defence version by alleging, vide DW1's deposition that JS received the second blow because he fell after E receiving the first blow on a 'kassi' lying beside GS, which cut his face on the right side. [Para
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.