JAVED ALAM versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANR.

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 398 · Decided: 08-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 8 S.C.R. 398 
..... -
A 
JAVED ALAM 
v. 
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1240 of 2006) 
B 
MAY 8, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
• .. 
Penal code, 1860: 
c 
ss. 302 and 302134 - Conviction under - Of four accused 
- Eye-witnesses to the incident - Witnesses turning hostile -
conviction uls. 302 of prime accused and of co-accused u/s. 
302134 by courts below - On appeal, held: conviction of prime 
accused justified - The co-accused are liable to be acquitted 
* ..
D 
as s.34 is not applicable in the facts of the case. 
s.34 - Nature and applicability of - Discussed. 
Administration of justice - Administration of Criminal 
E Justice - Protection of witnesses - Need for. 
Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 6 - Rule of Res Gestae -
applicability of - Discussed - Doctrine I Principle - Rule of 
)' . 
Res Gestae. 
F 
Appellants-Accused were prosecuted for causing 
death of a girl by crushing her under the jeep they were 
driving I boarding. Father of the prime accused was also 
prosecuted u/s. 201 IPC. Trial court convicted the prime 
accused (who was driving the jeep) u/s. 302 IPC and 
G convicted the three co-accused (who were boarding on 
.. ) 
the jeep) u/s. 302/34 IPC. Father of prime accused was 
acquitted. High Court confirmed the conviction order. 
Hence, the present appeal. 
H 
398 
JAVED ALAM v. STATE OF CHHATIISGARH AND 
399 
ANR. 
Dismissing the appeal of the prime accused, while 
A 
allowing that of the co-accused, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Prime accused is liable to be convicted. 
Instant case is a classic case of deficiency in the criminal 
justice system to protect the witnesses from heing 
8 
threatened by accused. As appears from the record, the 
witnesses are the classmates of the deceased who were 
~ there with her. They backed out from what was stated 
during investigation. The statement made before the 
Police during investigation is no evidence. Unfortunately, 
in cases involving influential people the common 
C 
experience is that witnesses do not come forward 
because of fear and pressure. In a brutal manner, the 
prime accused who was driving the vehicle run over the 
girl and she lost her life. The trial Court and the High 
• Court have highlighted certain aspects which clearly D 
bring out his guilt. Significant is the evidence of PWs 7 
and 8. PW-7 was the girl who accompanied the injured 
to the hospital and told about the incident to PW-3, the 
doctor which was recorded in report Ex.P-4 containing 
the name of PW-7 as the person told about the incident. 
E 
The evidence of PW-6 shows that PW-7 was sitting with 
the deceased when the jeep entered the campus. As 
~ rightly noted by the High Court something transpired 
~ later on which led to the witnesses giving a complete go 
bye to her earlier version. [Paras 8 and 15] [407-C-G] 
F 
1.2. More important is the evidence of PW-8 who 
blurted out during cross-examination some traces of truth 
which was labeled as unfair and dishonest cross-
examination by the appellants. At the end of the ordeal 
G 
of her evidence she cried and requested the Court not 
• ~ to call her again for evidence since they were disturbed 
for the entire year. The plight of the girls who were under 
pressure depicts the tremendous need for witness 
H 
400 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 
+ ... 
A protection in our country if criminal justice administretion 
has to be a reality. Even close reading of the evidence 
shows that how she was under tremendous pressure not 
to speak the truth. [Para 8] [407-G-H; 408-A-B] 
8 
1.3. Section 6 of the Evidence Act is an exception to 
the rule of evidence that hearsay evidence is not 
admissible. The test for applying the rule of res-gastae is 
that the statement should be spontaneous and should 
form part of the same transaction ruling out any 
c 
possibility of concoction. [Para 9] [408-E-F] 
Vijayavardhan Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1996 
SC 2791, relied on. 
2.1. Considering the background facts it is clear that 
D Section 34 IPC has no application. There is no evidence, . 
-
muchless credible, which has been salvaged from the 
onslaught on the witnesses which suggests that there 
was any meeting of minds, because everything appears 
to have happened suddenly. The evidence of PW8 on 
E 
which the prosecution has placed strong reliance for the 
purpose of attracting Section 34 IPC gave pre-varicating 
statements so far as others are concerned, though her 
statement is sufficient 

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