KHURSHID AHMED versus STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

Citation: [2018] 6 S.C.R. 1121 · Decided: 15-05-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1121
KHURSHID AHMED
v.
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
(Criminal Appeal No. 872 of 2015)
MAY 15, 2018
 [N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Ranbir Penal Code – s.302 – Prosecution case that there was
a scuffle between the appellant-accused and ‘A’ over some payment
issue – Same day in evening, appellant-accused assaulted ‘A’ on
his head in presence of his father-PW-9 – ‘A’ and PW-9 rushed to
clinic for first aid and then went to police station and lodged an
oral complaint – Head injury resulted in the death of ‘A’ – Trial
Court acquitted accused – However, High Court reversed the order
of acquittal into conviction u/ss. 302/341 RPC – Appellant-accused
contended that the entire case depended on the veracity of evidence
of PW-9 but he was an interested witness and therefore his evidence
was not reliable – On appeal, held: Trial Court adopted hyper
technical approach which resulted in the acquittal of the accused –
FIR lodged on the basis of the oral complaint made by the deceased
at the police station was a reliable document and was made soon
after the incident – The subsequent statement of the deceased at the
hospital as recorded by the I.O. was duly corroborated by the
evidence of PW-9 – PWs 2 & 10 also corroborated the testimony of
PW-9 and proved the attack as PWs 2 & 10 had heard the same
from deceased himself – PW10 had deposed to have witnessed the
scuffle between the accused and the deceased at the latter’s shop
in the daytime and also the threat given by the accused – PWs 2 &
10 had also witnessed the recovery of weapon of offence (iron rod)
at the instance of accused, as the weapon was recovered by the
police in their presence – Presence of PWs 2 & 10 at time of recovery
of weapon and their depositions corroborate and strengthens the
case of prosecution – Further, Doctor-PW13 deposed that cause of
death was head injury resulted by a blunt object and further revealed
that deceased had narrated to him how he was assaulted –
Postmortem report and the evidence of doctor-PW-13 fully
corroborates with evidence of PW-9 – If the evidence of an
[2018] 6 S.C.R. 1121
1121
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1122
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
eyewitness, though a close relative of the victim, inspires confidence,
it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration with minute
material particulars – Testimony of father-PW-9 inspired confidence
and the chain of events and circumstantial evidence thereof
completely supports his statements which in turn strengthens the
prosecution case with no manner of doubt – His evidence was
intrinsically reliable and wholly trustworthy – A conspectus of all
the material conclude that the prosecution was successful in proving
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Appeal – Powers of appellate Court – Held: The power of
the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal is same as that
of an appeal against conviction – But, in an appeal against acquittal,
the Court has to bear in mind that the presumption of innocence is
in favour of the accused and it is strengthened by the order of
acquittal – At the same time, appellate Court will not interfere with
the order of acquittal mainly because two views are possible, but
only when the High Court feels that the appreciation of evidence is
based on erroneous considerations and when there is manifest
illegality in the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.  In the instant case, according to PW9 (father of
the deceased), the deceased had supplied some G.I. tin sheets to
one person and the accused stood as guarantor for its payment.
On the day of occurrence, when the deceased demanded to pay
the money from the accused, he got annoyed and caught hold of
the neck of the deceased and started beating him by which some
bruises also appeared on the right side of his neck. At that point
of time, (PW1), (PW12) and (PW10) were present there and
separated them. The accused then threatened the deceased that
he would see him anytime. After the closure of shop, when
deceased was going home along with his father, on their way the
accused holding an iron rod in his hands, appeared from opposite
direction, intercepted their way and abused them.  When they
moved forward, the accused hit the deceased on his head with
the rod due to which he fell down with bleeding. [Para 17][1132-
E-G]
2.  The evidence of (PW2) and (PW10) also corroborate
the testimony of PW9 and prove the attack as PWs 2 & 10 having
A
B
C
D

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.