LexKHACHAR DIPU @ DILIPBHAI NAKUBHAI versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 5 S.C.R. 341
KHACHAR DIPU @ DILIPBHAI NAKUBHAI
A
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT
(Criminal Appeal Nos.532-33 of 2013)
APRIL 04, 2013
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]
B
Penal Cqde, 1860- s.302 - Murder-Appellant and two
other accused - Deceased was going to tiis field on cycle -
Appellant dashed motor vehicle from behind - Deceased was C
thrown off from his cycle - He was then tied behind the motor
vehicle and dragged for considerable distance - Few days
earlier, the accused had quarrelled with the deceased and had
threatened him - Conviction of appellant uls.304 Part I by trial
court - Altered to that u/s.302 by High Court - On appeal,
D
held: Post mortem report showed injuries on vital parts of the
deceased's body, the face was crushed and further there were
marks of dragging - A quarrel or altercation has its own
triviality but it gets magnified when the dashing of the vehicle
is proven and the nature of the injuries caused on the
E
deceased is taken note of - That apart, there is evidence that
the body was dragged - Intention to cause bodily injury
proved - Injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death - No flaw in the analysis made by the High Court
for altering the conviction u/s.304 Pert I recorded by the trial F
Judge to that u/s.302.
Evidence - Witness - Hostile witness - Appreciation of.
A-1 (appellant) and A-2 had a dispute with the
deceased {the brother of the complainant). Few days later, G
when the deceased was going to his field on cycle about
9.00 p.m., A-1, allegedly with the intention of killing him,
dashed motor vehicle from behind and when the
deceased was thrown off from his cycle, A-1 tied him
341
H
342
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 5 S.C.R.
A
behind the motor vehicle and dragged him about 10
kilometers and threw the dead body on the road and
destroyed the evidence. The other two accused persons
allegedly abetted the crime with common intention to
assist A-1.
B
The trial court held A-1 guilty under Section 304 Part-
1 of IPC and, accordingly, sentenced h-im to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for five years. The other accused
persons were, however, acquitted. On appeal by the
State, the High Court held that it was not a case of
C accident; and that the intention to cause d~ath was
proved by material evidence, oral as well as documentary
and accordingly converted the conviction of A-1
(appellant) to that of an offence punishable under Section
302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo life
D imprisonment. The acquittal of A-2 and A-3 was, however,
not interfered with by the High Court.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The post mortem report show that there
E
were injuries on the vital parts of the body, the face was
crushed and further there were marks of dragging which
were found on the upper part of the body and on the
back, and the private part was crushed. PW-16, who
F
conducted the post-mortem in his evidence, has
categorically stated that on the body there were marks
of dragging which was on the front part of the body and
on the back. The evidence in this regard has totally gone
unchallenged. PW-15, Scientific Officer, has deposed that
on the rear part of the bumper of the vehicle, there were
G skin pieces stuck and blood masses were seen. The
scientific report of FSL confirms that the back side of the
cycle had a colour mark of the front side of the motor
vehicle. Thus, dashing of the cycle by the motor·vehiole
in question is established by this scientific evidence also.
H There is sufficient proof that after the accident, there was
KHACHAR DIPU @ DILIPBHAI NAKUBHAI v. STATE 343
OF GUJARAT
dragging of the deceased by the vehicle in question. The A
trial Judge has not accepted the allegation of dragging
of the deceased solely on the basis that no injuries were
caused on the wrist. He has totally ignored the other
evidence collected by the Investigating Officer on the site,
the opinion of the doctor that the injuries were caused B
by the accident and dragging of the body and the F.S.L.
report. [Paras 9, 10] [349-E-F; 350-F, G-H; 351-A, D-G]
2. Some of the witnesses had turned hostile during
trial. However, it is well settled in raw that the evidence C
of the hostile witness can be relied upon by the
prosecution as well as by the defence. The High Court
has referred to the depositions of two witnesses, namely,
PW-20, and PW-21. On a careful scrutiny of the
testimonies of Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.