LexJODHAN versus STATE OF M.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2015] 4 S.C.R. 789 JO OHAN v. STATE OF M.P. Criminal Appeal No. 1683 of 2010 APRIL 08, 2015 [DIPAK MISRA AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302, 323, 324 rlw s. 149 - Prosecution case that the accused persons attacked the C deceased and complainant party with lathis, farsa and bombs - Trial court disbelieved the prosecution story and acquitted the accused - Conviction by High Court - Appeal against conviction - Held: The prosecution was able to D establish not only the appellant's presence but also his active participation as a member of the unlawful assembly - There was ample evidence to conclude that all the accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly and there was common object to assault the deceased who E succumbed to the injuries inflicted on him - Trial Judge was guided that there was a free fight - The said finding was demonstrably erroneous inasmuch as the prosecution clearly established the fact that the accused persons were F the aggressors - Thus, it was case where the appellant deserved to be convicted uls.302 in aid of s.149 - The witnesses, as High Court rightly found were reliable and stood embedded in their version and remained unshaken - The witnesses suffered injuries in the occurrence - Their G presence at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted - Laying emphasis on the minor discrepancies and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, who 789 H 790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R. A were natural witnesses to the occurrence and giving stress on irrelevant aspects and ultimately to record the acquittal, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as a plausible or possible view expressed by the trial Judge and, therefore, the High Court was justified in reversing the 8 judgment of acquittal to one of conviction. c D Appeal: Power of appellate court while exercising the appellate jurisdiction against the judgment of acquittal - Scope of, discussed. Witnesses: Injured witnesses/Related/Interested witnesses - Reliability of their testimony. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. On a perusal of the testimony of PW- 13 and the injuries sustained by the deceased, there can be no trace of doubt that the death was homicidal in nature and was caused by explosive substance. Other E witnesses had also suffered injuries in the occurrence. PW-7, PW-14, PW-15 and PW-16, who were related to the deceased were the eye witnesses and they had supported the prosecution version. There can be no cavil over the proposition that when the witnesses are F related and interested, their testimony should be closely scrutinized, but in the instant case, nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to discredit their version. On a studied scrutiny of their evidence, it can be said with certitude that they have lent support to G each other's version in all material particulars. There were some minor contradictions and omissions which were emphasised by the trial Judge. The High Court treated the said discrepancies and the minor contradictions as natural. That apart, their evidence H JODHAN v. STATE OF M.P. 791 also found support from the medical evidence and the A initial allegations made in the FIR. The trial Judge has attached immense emphasis to such omissions and contradictions which, according to the High Court, were absolutely insignificant and trivial. The witnesses who deposed against the accused persons were close B relatives and had suffered injuries in the occurrence. Their presence at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted, their version was consistent and nothing was elicited in the cross-examination to shake their testimony. There were some minor or trivial C discrepancies, but they really did not create a dent in their evidence warranting to treat the same as improbable or untrustworthy. A testimony of an injured witness stands on a higher pedestal than other 0 witnesses. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime E and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. [Paras 15, 17, 20, 21] [804-A; 805-E-H; 806-A, B; 808-E-F; 809-G; 810-A-B] Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v. State of A.P 2009 (14) F SCR 1: (2009) 10 SCC 636; Kallu v. Sta
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.