LexKURIA & ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
[2012] 10 S.C.R. 570
KURIA & ANR.
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
{Criminal Appeal No. 2488 of 2009)
SEPTEMBER 13, 2012
[SWATANTER KUMAR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 302 and 364 rlw s. 34 - Prosecution under - 15
accused causing death of one person - 4 eye-witnesses -
Animosity between parties - Conviction of 3 and acquittal of
rest of the accused by trial court - Appeal of one accused
0 abated due to his death - High Court upholding the conviction
of the two accused - On appeal, held: The eye-accounts are
fully supported by statement of Investigating Officer, inquest
report, post mortem report and the recoveries - There was
also motive for the accused to kill the deceased - Prosecution
E has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt -
In view of the evidence, accused rightly convicted.
s. 34 - Applicability - Held: The provision is applicable
in cases where it is not possible to attribute a specific role to
a particular accused - The basic essentials for applying it are
F : (1) Criminal act committed by several persons (2) The act
is done in furtherance of common intention.
s. 34 - Nature of - Held: The provision is a rule of
evidence and does not create a substantive offence.
G
Criminal Trial:
Improved and contradictory statements - Evidentiary
value - Held: The discrepancies or improvements which do
not materially affect the case of the prosecution and are
H
570
KURIA & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
571
insignificant, cannot be made the basis for doubting the A
prosecution case.
Witnesses:
Sole-eye witness - Evidentiary value - Held: The court 8
can act on the testimony of sole eye-witness provided he is
wholly reliable and can base conviction relying on such
witness.
Related witness - Evidentiary value - Held: If testimony
of an eye-witness found truthful, it cannot be discarded merely C
on the ground that the witness was relative of the deceased.
Words and Phrases:
Expression 'Sterling worth' in the context of Criminal
Jurisprudence - Meaning of.
D
The two appellants-accused alongwlth 13 other
accused were prosecuted ulss. 302 and 364 r/w s. 34 IPC
for having caused death of one person. According to
prosecution, there were 4 eye-witnesses (PWs 1, 3, 5 and
E
15) to the incident. One of the eye-witnesses PW 3 was
the son of the deceased and was the informant. There
was rivalry between the accused party and the
complainant party. During trial, two of the eye-witnesses
viz. Pws 1 and 5 turned hostile. Trial court acquitted all
F
the accused except three accused, Including the two
appellants-accused. The convicted accused filed appeal
before High Court. During pendency of the appeal, one
of the convicted accused died and the appeal abated
against him. High Court confirmed the conviction of the G
appellants-accused.
In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that
there Is contradiction between the ocular and medical
evidence;
that there
are contradictions
and
H
572
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 10 S.C.R.
A improvements in the statements of the witnesses; that
presence of PWs 3, 4, 7 and 15, at the scene of
occurrence, was doubtful hence their evidence not
reliable; that no specific role or use of weapon in the
attack was seen by any of the witnesses; that the
B statements of hostile witness or unreliable witnesses
cannot be used for the purpose of corroboration of other
witnesses; and that s. 34 IPC is not attracted in the
present case and therefore the conviction was not
justified.
c
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
the cumulative effect of the prosecution evidence is that
the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond
D reasonable doubt. [Para 29] [601-B]
2. It is not correct to say that there is conflict between
the medical evidence and the ocular evidence in relation
to the manner in which injuries were inflicted and the
E consequences thereof. Except where it is totally
irreconcilable with the medical evidence, oral evidence
has primacy. In the present case, a large number of
persons had attacked one person. These witnesses
cannot be expected to explain the role in the inflicting of
F injuries by each one of them individually and the weapons
used. Such conduct would be opposed to the normal
conduct of a human being. The fear for his own life and
anxiety to save the victim would be so high and
bothersome tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.