LexKATHI BHARAT VAJSUR & ANR. versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 5 S.C.R. 850 KATHI BHARAT VAJSUR & ANR. v. STATE OF GUJARAT (Criminal Appeal No. 1042 of 2002) MAY 08, 2012 [H.L. DATTU AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 rlw s. 34 - Armed assault - Gunshots - Blow on head with axe - Death of one person and C serious injury to PW6 - Acquittal of all three accused by trial court - Death of A 1 during pendency of appeal - A2 and A3 convicted by High Court u/s.302 rlw s.34 and sentenced to life imprisonment - Justification - Held: From the evidence of PW5, PW6, PW7, PWB, PW12 and PW16, it is clear that A1, D A2 and A3 were present at the place of the incident and were carrying tamanchas (country pistols) and axe; that there was altercation between the accused persons and PW5, PW6 and the deceased; that gun shots were fired and that deceased died because of gun shot injuries and blow on the head with E axe by A3 - Trial Court took a hyper-technical view by primarily concentrating on minor contradictions to hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt - Though there were some discrepancies in the evidence given by PW5 and PW6, guilt of the accused F not in doubt - Injuries on PW6 and the deceased were consistent with the testimony of the evidence tendered by the eyewitnesses, namely PW5 and PW6 - When medical evidence is in consonance with the principal part of the oral/ ocular evidence thereby supporting the prosecution story, no G question of ruling out the ocular evidence merely on the ground that there are some inconsistencies or contradictions in the oral evidence - The fact that the eyewitnesses did not recognize the weapons used, made no difference to the prosecution case in view of the entire evidence on record - H 850 KATHI BHARAT VAJSUR & ANR. v. STATE OF 851 GUJARAT Guilt of appellants (A2 and A3) proved beyond doubt - High A Court correctly appreciated the evidence on record - Conviction and sentence of appellants, as imposed by High Court, accordingly upheld. Evidence - Oral/Ocular evidence - Appreciation of - B Contradictions and inconsistencies - Effect of - Held: While appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial - Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or C improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. Witness - Unusual reaction of eye-witness - Effect of - Held: When an eyewitness behaves in a manner that perhaps D would be unusual, it is not for the prosecution or the Court to go into the question as to why he reacted in such a manner - There is no fixed pattern of reaction of an eyewitness to a crime - When faced with what is termed as 'an unusual reaction' of an eyewitness, the Court must only examine E whether the prosecution story is in anyway affected by such reaction - If the answer is in the negative, then such reaction is irrelevant. F The prosecution case was that there was an altercation between the three accused persons (A1, A2 and A3) and PW5, PW6 and 'M', whereupon A1 opened fire from his double bore tamancha (country pistol) causing injuries to PW6 and in the meanwhile, A2 also fired from tamancha on the person of 'M' due to which he fell down, and thereafter A3 caused injury on the head G of 'M' with an axe. Due to the injuries caused, 'M' died on the spot. Charge-sheet was filed against the three accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 IPC. The trial court, however, acquitted the accused persons, on the ground that the H 852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 5 S.C.R. A prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The State preferred appeal before the High Court. During pendency of the appeal, A1 expired, and the appeal stood abated as against him. The High Court reversed the order of acquittal passed by the trial court B and convicted A2 and A3 under section 302 read with section 34 IPC, sentencing them to imprisonment for life. Hence the present appeal by A2 and A3. Dismissing the appeal, the Court C HELD: 1. The circumstances in which an appellate court will interfere with the finding of the Trial Court are now well settled. The High Court is entitled to re- appreciate the evidence if it is fou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.