HARISINGH M. VASAVA versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 57 · Decided: 27-02-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.P. SETHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

HARISINGH M. VASAVA 
A 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
FEBRUARY 27, 2002 
[R.P. SETHI AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
B 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302. 
Murder-Eye witnesses-Two witnesses turned hostile-Testimony of 
complainant-witness-Corroboration of-Evidence of complainant-witness held C 
reliable-Conviction of accused held valid-Reversal of acquittal order by 
High Court held justified-Evidence Act, 1872. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, .1973: Section 378. 
Accused-Acquittal-State appeal against-Power of High Court in D 
appeal-Extent of 
The appellant was prosecuted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal 
Code, 1860. The prosecution case was that he committed murder of a woman 
who was living with him as his wife. The murder was committed in the house E 
of the complainant (PW2) who was tenant of the deceased. At the time of 
murder, deceased was in the company of the complainant. Besides 
complainant two girls of the locality were also present at that time. The 
appellant inflicted as many as 35 injuries on the deceased. Immediately after 
occurrence complainant lodged the complaint before the police. The accused 
himself appeared before the police. His blood stained clothes and dagger were F 
seized. During trial only the complainant supported the case of prosecution 
while the other two girls were declared hostile. 
The trial court acquitted the accused. It held that (i) the prosecution 
had failed to connect the accused with commission of the crime; (ii) the seizure 
of clothes and weapon of offence had not been proved (iii) complainant was G 
an interested witness because he was having illicit relationship with the 
deceased; and (iv) many other persons had also collected at the scene of crime 
but name of even one such witness was not mentioned in the FIR. 
On appeal preferred by State the High Court relied upon the testimony H 
57 
58 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002) 2 S.C.R. 
A of the complainant and held that the prosecution had successfully established 
the culpability of the accused in committing the murder at the house of the 
complainant Hence this appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal preferred by accused, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court was justified in interfering in this case by 
setting aside the judgment of the trial court. It has assigned valid reasons for 
believing the testimony of complainant. [65-B] 
2. There is sufficient corroboration of the testimony of complainant as 
is evident from the medical evidence showing the infliction of a number of 
C injuries with the weapon of offence stated to have been used by the appellant. 
His appearance before the police with the dagger and the blood stained clothes 
fully corroborates the prosecution evidence. No doubt is left when it is proved 
that blood stained clothes and the weapon of offence had the same group of 
blood which was that of the deceased. [63-G-H] 
D 
3. Merely because complainant did not intervene at the time when the 
appellant was inflicting knife blows on the person of the deceased cannot be 
a ground to discard his testimony. Only because the eye-witness fails to 
intervene to save the deceased, cannot be made a ground to reject his 
testimony particularly when he is not asked as to what restrained or refrained 
E him from intervening to save the deceased. (64-B] 
F 
4. FIR has been lodged promptly with sufficient details. The non-
mentioning of the names of the people, stated to have gathered on the spot, 
in the FIR does not, in any way, help the defence in this case. [64-A-D] 
5. The intimate relations between the deceased and the complainant on 
account of their relationship of landlady and tenant cannot be stretched to 
the extent of holding that complainant was an interested witness in the case. 
The manner and the place where the occurrence had taken place 
unambiguously suggests that complainant is the natural witness of the 
occurrence. Merely because two other eye witnesses were declared hostile 
G would not render the evidence of complainant inadmissible in view of the fact 
that he stands corroborated in material particulars by other evidence. 
[64-E-F] 
6. The settled position of law regarding the powers to be exercised by 
the High Court in an appeal against the order of acquittal is that though the 
H High Court has full powers to review the evidence upon which an order of 
-
HARISINGH M. VASA VA v. STATEOFGUJARAT[SETHl,J.] 
59 
acquittal is based, it will not interfere with an order of acquittal because with A 
the pas

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.