LexHAMZA versus MUHAMMADKUTTY @ MANI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013) 10 S.C.R. 867 HAMZA v. MUHAMMADKUTTY @ MANI & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 268 of 2007 etc.) JUNE 20, 2013 [A.K. PATNAIK AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s.302134 - Death of woman in her matrimonial house by stab injury on neck - Initial prosecution of the family members of the in-laws of the deceased u/ss. 498A and 306 /PC - Acquittal in the case - Not challenged further - Complaint by brother of the deceased alleging murder of the deceased by 6 family members of her in-laws - Prosecution uls. 302 and 201 rlw. s.34 /PC - Son of the deceased, who was 7 years of age at the time of incident, deposed as eye-witness - Trial court relying on the testimony of child witness, convicted 2 of the accused uls.302134 while acquitted other 4 accused - High Court reversed the order of conviction - On appeal, held: Order of High Court is not perverse or unreasonable so as to call for interference - Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - The child witness was tutored and his evidence was without adequate coffoboration and hence did not inspire confidence - Order of acquittal upheld. Witness - Child witness - Testimony - Corroboration of - Held: In absence of coffoboration of oral testimony of child witness, his evidence cannot be relied on. A B c D E F Medical Evidence - Appreciation of - Held: Medical evidence cannot be considered in isolation and must be G .. taken in conjunction with all the circumstantial evidence on record - When the doctor expresses two views, the view favourable to the accused should be taken into account. 867 H 868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 10 S.C.R. A Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 136 - Appeal under - Against order of acquittal - Scope of - Held: If the view taken by High Court is reasonable or plausible one on the evidence on record, Supreme Court should not reverse the order of acquittal passed by High Court, on the ground that it had B different view. The deceased in the present case, succumbed to the stab injuries on her neck. Initially four members of the family of her in-laws were prosecuted u/ss. 498A and 306 C IPC .. They were acquitted of the charges and no appeal was preferred against the acquitta1· order. After 2 years of the incident, .PW-2 (brother of the deceased) lodged a complaint against A-1 to A-6 alleging that A-1 and A-2 killed the deceased by stabbing her and D accused Nos. 3 to 6 caused disappearance of the evidence of murder. The accu.sed persons were prosecuted u/ss.302 and 201 r/w.;.s.34 IPC. Trial court relying on the oral testimony of the child eye-witness (son of the deceased who was 7 years old at the time of E the incident) convicted A-1 and A-2 for the offences u/s. 302/34 IPC. However, acquitted A-3 to A-6 of the offences u/ss.302 and 201 r/w. s.34 IPC. HigJl Court acquitted A-1 and A-2 (respondents) disbelieving the evidence of the child witness. Hence the present appeal by the F complainant. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The view taken by the ·High Court that A- 1 and A-2 were entitled to acquittal is not perverse or G unreasonable on the evidence on record so as to call for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. [Para 21] [888-E] 1.2. If the view taken by the High Court is reasonable H or a possible one on the evidence on record, this Court HAMZA v. MUHAMMADKUTTY @ MANI & ORS. 869 will not reverse the judgment of acquittal of the High A Court only on the ground that it had a different view of the evidence on record. Hence, the scope of the present appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution is limited to finding out whether the view taken by the High Court that on the evidence on record, the conviction of A-1 and A- B 2 for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC was not sustainable was a perverse or unreasonable view so as to call for interference by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. [Para 14] [882- A-C] C State of Kamataka vs. Amajappa and Ors. (2003) 9 SCC 468; State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Banne alias Baijnath and Others (2009) 4 SCC 271; State of Haryana vs. Shakuntla and Others (2012) 5 sec 171: 2012 (5) SCR 276 - relied 0 on. 2.1. It appears from the evidence of PW-1 that he was not revealing the whole truth and avoided to answer uncomfortable questions which would have prejudiced the prosecution case. Thus, PW-1 was tutored and hence E his evidence could no
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.