LexJEEWAN & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012) 11 S.C.R. 985 JEEWAN & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND (Criminal Appeal No. 1275 of 2009) DECEMBER 13, 2012 [SWATANTER KUMAR AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] Appeal: A B Criminal appeal filed by accused before High Court - c Proper and fair-hearing to appellants - Held: The appeal was filed by accused through advocates, who appeared and took several adjournments - Subsequently, another counsel appeared for the appellants and stated that he had no instructions in the matter - High Court then heard the appeal 0 with the assistance of amicus curiae and the State counsel - Thus, High Court took every precaution and ensured proper hearing to the appellants - Penal Code, 1860 - s.302134. Penal Code, 1860: E s. 302 rlw s.34 - Murder- Three accused - Two accused caught hold of the victim and the third stabbed him several times causing his death - Conviction of all the three and sentence of imprisonment for life, upheld by High Court - Held: The accused had participated with the common F intention in committing the murder of the deceased - The cumulative effect of the oral and documentary evidence was that all the three accused had been found guilty of offence punishable u/s. 302 read with s. 34 - In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to interfere with G the concurrent finding of conviction and order of sentence passed by courts below - There is some delay in lodging of the FIR, but the same stands fully explained - Motive - Evidence - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 136 - Delay in lodging FIR. 985 H 986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 11 S.C.R. A Evidence: Discrepancies in inquest report - Held: Discrepancy has to be material and seriously affecting the prosecution case - Every minor and immaterial discrepancy would not prove fatal 8 to the prosecution case - Inquest Report or the post mortem report cannot be termed to be basic evidence or substantive evidence and discrepancies occurring therein cannot be termed to be fatal nor even a suspicious circumstance which would warrant benefit to the accused and result in dismissal of the case of prosecution - Court has to examine entire case C and discuss prosecution evidence in its entirety to examine the real impact of a material contradiction upon the prosecution case - There is sufficient evidence in the instant case to show involvement of accused persons in commission of the crime. D The appellants were prosecuted for committing murder of the brother of PW-1. The prosecution case was that on 12-3-1991 at about 10 p.m., the complainant (PW- 1) and the deceased were returning home after attending E a marriage. When they had gone, about 100 steps away from the venue of the marriage, they met the accused persons, namely, A-1, A-2 and A-3. A-1 was carrying a knife while A-2 and A-3 were armed with sticks (dandas). A-2 and A-3 caught hold of the deceased while A-1 struck F several blows with knife on his chest and abdomen. PW2 and PW3, who after attending the marriage were taking rest in the nearby house, upon hearing the cries, reached the place of occurrence, whereupon the accused ran away. The victim was taken to the hospital where he G succumbed to his injuries. The trial court convicted all the three accused uls 302 read with s. 34 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. The High Court upheld the conviction and the sentence. In the instant appeal, apart from raising a plea that H the accused persons had not been given proper hearing JEEWAN & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 987 before the High Court and their right to a fair defence A stood denied, it was contended that the presence of PW2 and PW3 at the place of occurrence was very doubtful; that there was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR; and that the Inquest Report was in contradiction with the medical evidence and the ocular evidence of the B prosecution and there being material contradictions, the appellants were entitled to acquittal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. It cannot be said that the appellants were C denied proper and fair hearing before the High Court. The accused had filed appeal before the High Court through advocates, who appeared and took several adjournments. Thereafter they did not appear. Then another advocate appearing for appellants stated that he 0 had no instructions in the matter. The High Court then heard the appeal with the assistance of amicus curiae appoint
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.