KASHIRAM versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 337 · Decided: 16-10-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
KASHIRAM 
A 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. 
OCTOBER 16, 1998 
[M. K. MUKHERJEE AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] 
B 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 : 
Sections 302 and 324-Conviction under-Validity of-Accused firing 
gun shots-Murder-Bullet injuries to witnesses-Consistent testimony of C 
prosecution witnesses-Fact of witnesses sustaining the injuries established-
Absence of medical evidence therefore inconsequential-Circumstance 
disproving plea of Alibi by appellant-Conviction of and sentence imposed 
on appellant held valid. 
The appellant, along with six co-accused, was prosecuted under sections D 
147, 148, 302 read with sections 149 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 
1860. The prosecution story was that on 29.12.1986 the accused persons 
formed an unlawful assembly; committed murder of one G and caused gun 
injuries to four prosecution vvitnesses. The prosecution witnesses were 
consistent in their version that the appellant fired the gun after taking it E 
from a co-accused, R. S(PW-1) said to have been working in the field heard 
sounds of screaming and wailing; saw a bullock cart carrying the dead body 
of G. He reported tht matter to the police. 
The Trial Court acquitted all the accused. On appeal by the State, the 
High Court confirmed the acquittal of four accused but convicted and sentenced F 
the appellant and R under sections 302 and 324. The appellant preferred 
appeal before this Court while the other accused R has not approached this 
Court. 
On behalf of the appellant not only alibi was pleaded but also it was 
contended that (i) no doctor has been examined to prove the alleged injuries G 
of eye witnesses; and (ii) the evidence of prosecution witness was full of 
discrepancies. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of H 
337 
338 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A acquittal passed by the trial court and convicting the appellant under section 
302 as well as section 324 IPC. The sentences awarded by the High Court 
are quite appropriate and there is no warrant to interfere with the same. 
(341-H; 342-A) 
2. There are several circumstances which disprove the case of alibi. 
B There was no consistency in the suggestions made to prosecution witnesses 
when they were cross-examined. A suggestion was made to PW-2 that he 
himself and the members of his group attacked the appellant and his driv.er. 
This could be only on the basis that the appellant was present at the spot. 
There was no suggestion to PW-13 that the llppellant was not present there. 
C When the appellant was questioned under section 313 Cr. PC he did not say 
that he was not present at the spot. All his answers were mere denials of 
the evidence put to him. (341-8-C) 
3. The evidence of eye witnesses is consistent and excepting minor 
discrepancies which are natural due to frailty of human memory, nothing has 
D been pointed out for discrediting their evidence. All the five witnesses have 
categorically spoken about the presence of the appellant on the spot and his 
firing the gun after taking it from R. In the facts and circumstances of the 
case, there is no difficulty in rejecting the version of the appellant that he 
was not present on the scene of occurrence at the relevant time. The matters 
E relied on by the counsel for the appellant in support of his contention that 
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is unacceptable are not of much 
significance or sufficient importance to negative the reliability of the 
prosecution witnesses. (340-D-E; 341-G) 
4. The argument that no doctor has been examined to prove the injuries 
F of the witnesses is without any substance. Nothing has been elicited in the 
cross-examination to enable the court to discard their version of having 
suffered injuries. [340-E-F) 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 57 
of 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.11.96 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in Crl. A. No. 158 of 1992. 
A. Shashank and Shakeel Ahmed for the Appellant. 
H 
Anoop G. Choudhary, Uma Nath Singh and Prashant Kumar for the 
-
.. 
• 
KASHIRAM 11. STA TE OF M.P. [SRINIVASAN, J.] 
339 
Respondent. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SRINIVASAN, J. The appellant and six other persons stood prosecuted 
for offences under Ss. 147, 148, 302 read with 149 and 307/149. They were B 
acquitted by the Additional District Judge, Narisinghgarh, Distt. Rajgarh 
(Byara), M.P. State. On appeal, the High Court confi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.