IDRISH BHAI DAUDBHAI versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 885 · Decided: 31-01-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. VENKATARAMA REDDI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

_,,• 
IDRISH BHAI DAUDBHAI 
A 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
JANUARY 31, 2005 
(P. VENKATARAMA REDDI AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Trial : 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 302134-Accused along with other persons c 
allegedly causing death of one and hurt to other-Conviction of accused 
under sections on basis of evidence of prosecution witnesses-High· Court 
upheld the order-Correctness of-Held: Accused entitled to benefit of doubt 
since there exist discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses vis-
a-vis First Information Report and Post Mortem Report-No overt act attributed 
to accused to hold him guilty of sharing common intention to commit the D 
~ 
offence-Even exhortation not enough to prove common intention-Also eye 
witnesses are interested witnesses-Hence order of High Court set aside-
.. 
Evidence Act, 1872 . 
Single Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant • accused under 
section 302/34 IPC for sharing common intention with other accused for E 
causing death of S and simple hurt to PW 3. 
It is alleged that dispute arose between S and other accused persons 
with regard to a transaction of land/house. Appellant inflicted stick blow 
on the head of S as a result he fell down and accused no. I inflicted knife F 
.... 
blow on his chest. PW-3 tried to intervene and accused no. 2 inflicted knife 
\. 
injury. Appellants' mother had sickle in her hand.Sand PW-3 were taken 
to the hospital and S was declared dead. FIR was lodged. Charges were 
framed. Sessions Judge examined the prosecution witnesses and convicted 
the appellant under section 302/34 IPC, accused no. I under section 302 
IPC and accused no 2 under section 302/34 and sectilln 324 IPC, however, G 
he acquit~ed accused no. 3. High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the 
1 
appellant and accused no. I. Appeal of accused no. 2 stood abated since 
he expired. This Court dismissed the SLP filed by accused no. I. Thus, 
the appeal is confined only to the appellant. 
885 
H 
A 
B 
886 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] I S.C.R. 
Appellant - accused contended that there are contradiction and 
inconsistencies in the deposition of the witnesses and FIR; that the 
prosecution could not prove beyond any reasonable doubt the role played 
by appellant in the incident, nor the alleged intention shared by appellant 
and other co-accused for causing the death of the deceased; and that the 
doctor failed to note the colour of the wound and the exact place of skull 
vault where the injury had occurred in the autopsy report. 
R~spondent-State contended that though certain discrepancies exist 
in the statements of the witnesses' vis-a-vis FIR and the Post Mortem 
Report, the evidence of the three witnesses, who have proved the 
C prosecution case as against the appellant cannot be discarded. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD I.I. The statements made in the First Information Report in 
a case of this nature must be given due importance. In the instant case, 
D the statements of the prosecution vis-a-vis the allegations made in the HR 
and Inquest Report are contradictory and/or inconsistent with each other. 
In the HR nothing has been mentioned about the appellant's role as regard 
his hitting the deceased with a stick on his head as deposed by the 
prosecution witnesses and also the sequence of events is different from 
what was deposed by PW-I. Furthermore, PW-I categorically stated that 
E the accu~ed persons became agitated only after the appellant allegedly hit 
the deceased with a stick and accused no. I and 2 went into their house 
and came back with knives which stands contradicted by the statement 
of PW-5 who alleged that both the appellant and accused no. I were 
standing by the side of the road with a stick and open knife in their hands. 
F 
[892-C-D-E[ 
1.2. The prosecution has also failed to bring any materials on record 
to show that there had been any pre-concert or pre-arranged plan so as 
to hold that the appellant had any common intention to commit the alleged 
offence. FIR itself suggests that the accused persons became excited all of 
G a sudden. In the HR only one overt act is attributed to the appellant that 
is his exhortation 'maro, maro' which took place as alleged in the FIR only 
after injuries had been inflicted by accused Nos. I and 2 and no injury 
was inflicted on the deceased or PW-3 after the alleged exhortation. 
Appellant by no means can be held guilty of sharing a common intention 
with other accused to commit murder of the decea

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