LexKAPILDEO SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
) . , -----, \ \ : ... ---~-~------ KAPILDEO SINGH AND ORS. \ - --...... - A --- v. STATEOFBIHAR - APRIL 7, 1993 ~•o ·-[DR. A.S.ANAND AND N.P.SINGH,JJ.] Indian Penal Code.1860: B Sections 34. 148. 149. 302. 324 and 326-Murder and causing griel"ous injury-Common imention-Proof of~01iviction altered to c one uls. 302 rlws 34-Benefit of doubt-Acquittal of certain accused. The appel:ants were charged with offence_s under Sections 3021 149, 148, 324 •nd 326 IPC·for causing the murder of one 'S' and for _ causing grle·1ous Injury to one' R'. The Trial Court acquitted them. On appeal by the State, the High Court reversed the order of D acquittal. Aia,'Tle.-ed. by the High Court's judgment, the appellants preferred the present appeal. · _ - _ Jt was contended on behalf of the appeliants that the version of the occurrence given by PW 11 in his statement recorded viz. Ex. Pl2 E was.materially different from the statement of PW 13 recorded as FIR (Ex.7) and gave a lie to the pro~ecution case rendering the prosecution - case doubtful; that the High Court erroneously Ignored the statement of PW 11 /'olding it inadmissible In evidence on the ground that Uhad been recorded during the Investigation; and that due to the admitted F enmity be_tween the parties and the hostility of the Mukhiya of the ____ Gram Panchayat towards Al and Al, it would not be safe to rely upon the testimony of the prosecution witnesses without looking for lnde· pendent corroboration and in the absence of which the conviction of the appellants was 'not justified. - __ Partly allowing the app_eal, _this Court, HELD: l.IIl viewoftheadmittedenmitybetween the parties and _ the dose relationship of the witnesses inter-se and the dose relation- ship of the accused persons witli one' another, the possibility that H ======= co ::::: ::c = :o::--==---.1~~-- ---~-~~~=---~- --~=---- 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 3 S.C.R. A alongwith the actual assailants some others have also been implicated cannot be ruled out. Prudence therefore requires that this court should look for corroboration of the testimony of PW 13 in respect of each of the ace.used before finding them guilty. Since, the prosecution witnesses knew each of the accused, the non-identification by any one of them of AS, A6 and A 7 renders the presence of these accused and B their participation rather doubtful. It is not possible to say with an)' amount of certainty that they were actually involved in the commis- sion of the crime along with the other accused persons. Of course, PW 13 would not leave her own assailants or the assailants of her father, but it is not unknown that in view of the pronounced hostility between c the parties, the close relations of A 1, A2, A3 and A4, namely, accused AS, A6 and A 7 may have also been roped in (8-H, 9-A-C). 2. Though PW 10 and PW 12 did not recognizeA4 as one of the accused but the participation of A4, who according to PW 13 had D given her the blow with the grasa chopping off her two fingers of the left hand, has been conclusively established. The presence of A3, since deceased, is admitted b)' all the prose<;ution witnesses. The testimony of PW 13, is consistent about the participation of Al and A2 alongwith A4 in the crime. Inspite of lengthy cross-examination nothing has been brought out to discredit her testimon)· in so far as either the occur- E rence or the actual assault on her and the deceased is concerned. The ocular testimony regarding the participation of the accused in the crime as well as the maimer of assault and the nature of weapons used by Al, A2 and A4 for causing injuries has received ample corrobora- tion from the medical evidence and the recovery of the blood stained F clothes and earth from the place of occurrence. The FIR lodged promptly by the injured witnesses also lends enough assurance as regards the particip3:tion of A I, A2, A3 and A4 in the crime. Thus, the prosecution has established the case against Al, A2, A3 (since dead) and A4, beyond any reasonable doubt (9-D-G) G 3. Since, the presence of AS, A6 and A 7 and their participation in the crime is in doubt they are entitled to the benefit of doubt and giving them the benefit of doubt, their conviction and sentence are set aside and they are acquitted. With their acquittal it is only the four appellants Al, A2, A3 and A4 against whom the prosecution can be H said to have established its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.