LexLAXMAN versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 8 S.C.R. 910 LAX MAN v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No. 246 of 2008) SEPTEMBER 27, 2012 [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 rlw 34 - Murder - Common intention - Eleven accused - Trial court convicted A-1,2,3,4, 7 C & 10 u/s. 302 r/w s. 149 /PC and sentenced them to life imprisonme_nt - High Court found A-1,2 & 7 guilty u/s.302 r/w s.34 !PC and confirmed their life sentence but acquitted A- 3,4 & 10- On further appeal by A-1 & 2, held: Merely because PW 3, 4 & 5 were related to the family of the victim, their D testimonies cannot be eschewed - PWs 3, 4 and 5 not only witnessed the occurrence but also specified the overt acts of each accused, particularly, A-1, 2 and 7 - On facts, where the PWs made all attempts to save the life of the victim by taking him to the nearest hospital through a bu/Jock cart and they E a/so sustained injuries, and the victim died 12 hours after the incident and the police complaint was lodged thereafter, the delay in lodging of FIR cannot affect the prosecution case - Non-recording of dying declaration is inconsequential since the victim remained unconscious all throughout till his death F - Injuries sustained by some accused being minor in nature, even in absence of proper explanation by the prosecution, the prosecution story cannot be disbelieved - PW1, who conducted the post-mortem, opined that the probable cause of death was primarily head injury associated with other· multiple injuries - Among the accused, at least two, namely, G A-1 and A-2 were armed with sticks and A-7 was armed with axe - It is established that head injury was at the instance of A-7 and other injuries all over the body were at the instance of A-1 and 2 by means of axe and sticks respectively - H 910 LAXMAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 911 Appellants (A-1 and 2) and A-7 had assaulted the victim, A inflicted multiple injuries and shared common intention - Conviction of appellants accordingly sustained. The prosecution case was that when 'N' came out of the house of PW-5, the accused persons who were sitting in the house of A-1 came out and they assaulted 'N' by B means of axe, sticks and stones; that on seeing this, PW- 5, PW-3 and PW-4 and 3 others came to rescue 'N' but they were also assaulted by the accused persons and sustained injuries. 'N' received grievous injuries and was taken to the hospital where he died subsequently. The C trial court convicted 6 out of 11 accused, namely, A-1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 10 under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. They were also convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 147 and 148 read with Section 149 of IPC, but no separate D sentence was awarded. Rest of the accused persons were acquitted of all the charges. All the 6 convicts filed appeal b,efore the High Court. The High Court found A- 1,2 and 7 guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and confirmed the sentence imposed upon them E by the trial Court but acquitted A-3,4 and 10 by giving them the benefit of doubt. In the instant appeals, A-1 and 2 challenged their conviction on the ground that the witnesses relied on the side of the prosecution, viz., PWs 3, 4 and 5 were relatives F of the deceased 'N'. They also submitted that there was no proper explanation for the delay in lodging of FIR; that though the deceased was alive for 12 hours, no dying declaration was recorded and finally that the prosecution had not offered any explanation for the injuries sustained G by some of the accused persons, and, hence, the entire prosecution story was to be disbelieved. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The entire prosecution rests on the H 912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R. A evidence of PWs 3, 4 and 5. PW-3, who made the complaint to the police is brother of the deceased. Likewise, PW-4, who witnessed the occurrence is the son of the deceased and PW-5 is the mother-in-law of grand- daughter of the deceased. But merely because the B witnesses are related to the family of the deceased, their testimonies cannot be eschewed. However, their testimonies have to be scrutinized carefully and if there is no infirmity, there is nothing wrong in accepting their statement. Apart from this, it is also not in dispute that C PWs 3 and 4 sustained injuries which is evident from the deposition of the Doctor who examined them. [Para 6] [917
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.