LexMAHADEO SAHNI AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B MAHADEO SAHNI AND ORS. v. ST A TE OF BIHAR AUGUST 13, 2002 [UMESH C. BANERJEE AND Y.K. SABHARWAL,JJ.] Penal Code, 1860-Sections 3021149, 147, 148 and 304 Part 1//149- Murder-Conviction under Sections 3021149, 147 and 148-Upheld by High C Court-Assault by various persons with various weapons-Medical evidence supported prosecution case as to weapons used for assault-Plea to convert the conviction under Section 3041149-Held there is no factual support for altering the conviction-Prosecution succeeded in establishing charges under Section 3021149. D Practice and Procedure-Appreciation of evidence-Interference by Supreme Court-Though generally not permissible but could interfere in case of miscarriage of justice or perversity. According to the prosecution the appellants assaulted two persons with various weapons resulting in their death and the assault was witnessed by E PWs 2 and 4, and the assault, was supported by medical evidence. Trial Court observed that doctor's evidence did not disclose as to which injuries were independently sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and that there was evidence to conclude that all the accused were independently guilty of murder. Thus the accused were convicted and F sentenced under Section 302/149 IPC. The court further convicted and sentenced four ,of the accused under Section 148 and the rest of the accused under Section 147 IPC. High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. In appeal to this Court appellant contended that they could not have been G convicted under Section 302 and their offence would fall under Section 304 Part 11/149 as prosecution failed to prove as to who among the accused had struck the fatal blow resulting in death of the deceased. H Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. In the instant case there is no factual support for bringing 502 / MAHADEO SAHNI v. STATE [UMESH C. BANERJEE, J.] 503 in Section 304 Part II instead of Section 302 and there exists, by appreciation A of evidence, a definite finding that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charges under Section 302 read with Section 149 !PC and accordingly all the accused persons were rightly convicted, and in addition thereto three accused were convicted under Section 148 !PC while the other accused were convicted under Section 147 IPC. 1510-E, F, GI Ramkishan and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 11997) 7 SCC 518, distinguished. B 1.2. Since during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, appellant Nos. 2 and 6 passed away, and since A9 passed away during the pendency of the appeal before this Court, the appeal against them stands C abated. (511-B, CJ 2. It is trite to record that in the normal course of events the apex Court would not re-appreciate or effect a further scrutiny of the evidence on record. But this is not a rule steadfast or an inevitable practice-flexibility in the D administration of justice stands out to be the hall-mark in our justice delivery system. The requirement of the situation stands out to be a basic tenet in the Indian jurisprudential system and the approach being justice oriented the interest of justice would prompt this Court to rise to the occasion and thus there being a rule steadfast of not appreciating the evidence would not arise- miscarriage of justice or perversity would prompt even the apex Court to go E into the matter since technicality ought not to outweigh the course of justice. [503-H; 504-A, BJ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 574- 575 of2002. From the Judgment and Order dated 22.2.1999 of the Patna High Court in Crl.A. (D.P.) No. 62 87 with Crl.A. (D.B.) No. 74of1987. K.B. Sinha, R.R. Dubey, Surjit K. Singh and S.B. Upadhyay for the Appellants. Saket Singh, for B.B. Singh for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BANERJ<:E, J. It is trite to record that in the normal course of events F G the apex Court would not re-appreciate or effect a further scrutiny of the evidence on record. We, however, hasten to add here that this is not a rule H 504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. I S.C.R. A steadfast or an inevitable practice flexibility in the administration of justice stands out to be the hall-mark in our justice delivery system. The requirement of the situation stands out to be a basic tenet in the Indian jurisprudential system and the approach being justice oriented the interest of justice would pr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.