LexHARADHAN DAS versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 13 S.C.R. 981 HARADHAN DAS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 2007) DECEMBER 13, 2012 [SWATANTER KUMAR AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3021149 - Murder - Five accused including the appellant-accused entering the house A B of the victims - Causing death of one and injuries to two - C Eyewitnesses to the incident - Appellant-accused identified by the witnesses including injured witnesses - Three witnesses declared hostile - Accused charged u/ss. 148, 3021 149, 3261149 and 460 /PC - One of the accused died during trial and hence the case against him abated - Trial court D acquitted three accused and convicted the appellant-accused uls. 3021149 - The order of trial court was confirmed by High Court - On appeal, held: Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt - Presence of eye-witnesses (two of them injured) at the place of occurrence is not doubtful - Their E evidence is also corroborated by the three hostile witnesses - The evidence of injured witnesses were also corroborated by medical evidence and evidence of Investigating Officer - Other accused even if acquitted uls. 3021149 on account of lack of evidence for having pre-determined mind and for not F having been identified, appellant accused could be convicted uls. 302 as there was direct evidence against him - Appellant- accused could also have been convicted with the aid of s. 149 - If five or more accused are charged uls. 302 rlw s. 149 and if identification, role and object in participation against some G accused not proved, still others against whom the case is · proved, can be punished with the aid of s .. 149 - s. 149 would include the acquitted persons - Conviction affirmed. Witness - Hostile witness - Evidentiary value - Held: 981 H 982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R. A Evidence of such witness, so far as it supports the prosecution case, is admissible. Administration of Criminal Justice - Criminal case - Investigation took 4 years and trial took 14 years - Advice to 8 the State and the courts to gear up administrative machinery, so that at least trial of heinous offence gets concluded within reasonable period. Five accused, including the appellant-accused, were prosecuted for house-breaking and causing death of one C and causing injuries to two. Son of the deceased, who was an eye-witness lodged FIR. However, he could not be examined in the court as he died during trial. Two of the witnesses were injured. The appellant-accused was duly identified by the injured witnesses as well as the D other witnesses present in the house at the time of the occurrence. The accused were charged u/ss. 148, 302/ 149, 326/149 and 460 IPC. Trail against one of the accused abated because of his death. Trial court acquitted three accused on the ground that they were not identified and E there was no direct evidence implicating them. The appellant-accused was convicted by trial court u/s. 302/ 149 IPC. The order of trial court was confirmed by High Court. In appeal, the appellant contended that as there was F common evidence against all the accused, the courts below could not have convicted him having acquitted other accused; that no specific role was assigned to him; that he was entitled to benefit of doubt as PWs 1, 3 and 5 were declared hostile; and that conviction with the aid G of s. 149 IPC was not permissible. The State contended that even if a case is not made out against the accused u/s. 302/149 IPC, still he could be convicted u/s. 460 IPC for which he was charged and H tried. HARADHAN DAS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 983 Dismissing the appeal, the Court A HELD: Per Swantanter Kumar, J: B 1. The statements of PWs 1, 3 and 5, though declared hostile, do provide support to the case of the prosecution. They suggest that an incident of dacoity had taken place at the house of the deceased who was badly injured and taken to the hospital. There was a bomb blast at the house and the presence of these witnesses at the stated places cannot be doubted. It is a settled principle of law that the statement of a witness C who has been declared hostile by the prosecution is neither inadmissible nor is it of no value .in its entirety. The statement, particularly the examination-in-chief, in so far as it supports the case of the prosecution, is admissible and can be relied upon by the Court. [Paras D 13 and 14] [993-H; 994-A-C] Bhajju @ Karan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.