KUMAR versus STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2018] 5 S.C.R. 343 · Decided: 11-05-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
343
       KUMAR
v.
STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No. 409 of 2017)
MAY 11, 2018
[N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302 and 324 – Conviction by courts
below – Prosecution case was that the appellant-accused and the
victim-deceased had a verbal spat – On fateful day, appellant came
to spot and picked up fight with PW-1 – In the process of
interference to prevent assault, PW-2 also got injured – Soon
thereafter when victim-deceased appeared at the spot, the appellant
pushed him into the canal and hit him with wooden log on his head
– Villagers prevented the appellant from assaulting deceased thereby
causing injuries to him – Both appellant and the deceased were
shifted to hospital where deceased succumbed to injuries – Trial
court convicted appellant and awarded life imprisonment – High
Court upheld the same – On appeal, held: Most of the prosecution
witnesses were hearsay witnesses – They had deposed that both the
appellant and the deceased participated in the fight with wooden
logs and appellant also got head injury at the hands of deceased –
But, prosecution did not produce his medical record, nor the Doctor
was examined on the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant –
In the circumstances in which the deceased, appellant and also
PW-2 got injuries, it was obligatory on the part of IO. to examine
the doctor and seek information about the injuries sustained by the
accused and the same should have been made part of the record –
The injuries alleged to have been caused to appellant were not
properly explained, rather an alternative story was set up wherein
the injuries were attributed to mob justice, such plea without
substantive evidence cannot be accepted – Had there been a strong
motive to do away with the life of deceased, generally there would
have been more fatal injuries caused on the deceased not by a log
but by utilizing more dangerous weapons – These circumstances
show that there is no reason to believe that motive was entertained
by the accused in the back drop of quarrel that took place prior to
[2018] 5 S.C.R. 343
                                                  343
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
344
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
the date of occurrence – In the absence of positive proof of such
motive, prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt
– Conviction and sentence awarded by courts below set aside.
Investigation: Role of Investigating authority – The
investigative authority has a responsibility to investigate in a fair
manner and elicit truth – The concerned authorities to take up the
investigation in a neutral manner, without having regards to the
ultimate result.
Criminal law: Injuries on the accused – A duty is cast on the
prosecution to furnish proper explanation to the Court how the
person who has been accused of assaulting the victim received
injuries on his person in the same occurrence – Penal Code, 1860
– ss.302 and 324.
Criminal law: Motive – Generally, in case prosecution desires
to place motive of the accused as a circumstance, like any other
incriminating circumstance, it should also be fully established – If
the genesis of the motive of the occurrence is not proved, the ocular
testimony of the witnesses as to the occurrence could not be
discarded only on the ground of absence of motive, if otherwise the
evidence is worthy of reliance – Evidence.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Most of the prosecution witnesses are hearsay
witnesses. Contrary to what complainant (PW-1) deposed, a
combined reading of evidences of PWs 2, 3, 5, 15, 19 and 20
show that both the accused and the deceased participated in the
fight with wooden logs, accused got head injury at the hands of
deceased, PW-2 himself also received injury at the  hands of
accused while he was trying to protect PW-1 from assault of the
accused. The police reached the place of occurrence within ten
minutes of the occurrence, that is well before the arrival of
ambulance.  At that point of time, Police enquired PW-1, PW2
and other witnesses, drawn report, sketch map etc., and took
their signatures and sent the injured persons to hospital. That
sequence of incidents shows that already investigation was started
by police. That means the information provided by PWs 1, 2 and
other witnesses at about 6:30 P.M. at the place of occurrence
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
345
should have ideally been the basis of the F.I.R. Whereas the F.I.R.
shows that the information 

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