KARULAL & ORS. versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2020] 9 S.C.R. 494 · Decided: 09-10-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
494
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
KARULAL & ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 2011)
OCTOBER 09, 2020
[N. V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 148, 302/149 – Prosecution under – Three eye-witnesses
– Conviction by Courts below – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held:
Prosecution version is cogent and supported by consistent testimony
of three eye-witnesses which is further corroborated by medical
evidence – The facts that two of the eye-witnesses were related and
that some of the witnesses turned hostile, will not affect the
prosecution case.
Evidence:
Related witness – Evidentiary value of – Held: Testimony of
related witness, if found to be truthful, can be the basis of conviction.
Criminal Trial:
Plea of false implication – On account of previous enmity –
Held: Plea not sustainable – If the witnesses are otherwise
trustworthy, past enmity by itself will not discredit any testimony.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. PW11 is an unrelated witness. His testimony
substantially supports the evidence of PW3 and PW12 in all
material particulars. In any case, being related to the deceased
does not necessarily mean that they will falsely implicate innocent
persons. The testimony of the related witness, if found to be
truthful, can be the basis of conviction and there is every reason
to believe that PW3 and PW12 were immediately present at the
spot and identified the accused with various deadly weapons in
their hands. [Paras 19 and 20][501-E-F; 502-B-C]
[2020] 9 S.C.R. 494
494
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
495
Dalip Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC
364 : [1954] SCR 145; State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Samman Dass (1972) 3 SCC 201 : [1972] 3 SCR 58;
Khurshid Ahmed v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2018)
7 SCC 429 : [2018] 6 SCR 1121 – relied on.
2. If the witnesses are otherwise trustworthy, past enmity
by itself will not discredit any testimony. In fact the history of bad
blood gives a clear motive for the crime. Therefore this aspect
does not aid the defence in the present matter. [Para 22][502-G]
Sushil & Ors. v. State of U.P. (1995) 1 Suppl. SCC 363
: [1994] 5 Suppl. SCR 294 – relied on.
3. There are enough material evidence and trustworthy
testimonies which clearly support the case against the accused
and the prosecution need not fail on the count that few of the
witnesses had not supported the prosecution case and were
declared to be hostile. Some witness may not support the
prosecution story for their own reasons and in such situation, it
is necessary for the Court to determine whether the other
available evidence comprehensively proves the charge. In the
present case, the prosecution version is cogent and supported
by three eyewitnesses who have given a consistent account of
the incident. Their testimonies are corroborated by the medical
evidence. The Trial Court had elaborately discussed the evidence
of both sides and came to a logical conclusion which inspires
confidence. Therefore, the hostile witnesses will not affect the
conviction of the appellants. The conviction of the appellants was
rightly ordered and correctly upheld by the High Court.
[Paras 23 and 24][503-G-H; 504-A-B]
Case Law Reference
[1954] SCR 145
relied on
Para 18
[1972] 3 SCR 58
relied on
Para 19
[2018] 6 SCR 1121
relied on
Para 20
[1994] 5 Suppl. SCR 294
relied on
Para 21
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
316 of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.06.2009 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 1637 of
1999.
KARULAL & ORS. v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
496
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, Dy.AG, T. Mahipal, Arjun Garg,
Ms. Shrutika Garg, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HRISHIKESH ROY, J.
1. This Appeal has been preferred by 5 accused, namely,
Karulal(A-5), Amra(A-6), Kachru(A-7), Suratram(A-8) and
Bhagirath(A-9). They challenge the judgment and order dated 23.6.2009
in Criminal Appeal No.1637 of 1999  whereby, the Madhya Pradesh
High Court, Indore Bench approved the conviction of the appellants
under Section 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short “the IPC”) and the resultant sentence for such conviction
ordered by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur (hereinafter
referred to as, “the  learned Trial Court”).
2. The prosecution case is that at about 8-8.30AM Madhavji the
deceased, was pres
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.