LexMAHENDRA RAI versus MITHILESH RAI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MAHENDRA RAI A v. MITHILESH RAI AND ORS. DECEMBER 13, 1996 [M.M. PUNCHHI AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] B Criminal Law : Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 : Section 174. Inquest report-Eye· witnesses-Evidence of-Who were also witnesses C to inquest report-Held: S.174(1) did not require mention of names of assailants in inquest report-Hence such evidence could not be rejected merely on ground of discrepancy regarding time of preparation of inquest \ report and absence of names of assailants in it. Penal Code, 1860 : Section 302. Motiv~Trifling matter (dispute over price of milk) Held : commission of offence depended on frame of mind-Trifling matter could lead to mur- der-For there may be persons who took serious view of trifling matter. Criminal Trial. D E Appreciation of evidence-Murdel'-High Court rejected evidence of eye witnesses on ground of contradictions-Said witnesses not shown their case diary statements recorded under S.161 Cr. P.C. from which contradictions sought-Nor said contradictions exhibited and placed on record-Held: Con- tradictions insignificant and minoT'-flence High Court emd in rejecting their F evidence and setting aside sentence of death imposed by trial court 011 accused A-1 andA-2-Accordingly order of trial court convicting A-1 and A-2 under S.302 !PC restored-However, death sentence 011 A-1 commuted to life imprisonment and sentence of life imprisonment A-2 confirmed-Acquittal of A-3 by High Court well founded, in absence of any cogent evidence against G him. Respondent No. 1 was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to capital punishment. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. However, the High Court ac- H 81 I 82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1996] SUPP.10 S.C.R. A quitted all the respondents. Hence this appeal. According to the prosecution, there was some dispute and alterca- tion between the deceased and respondent No. 2 over the price of milk. On the same day when the deceased was sleeping respondent No. 1 alongwith respondents No. 2 went there. Respondent No. 2 caught hold of the head B of the deceased and respondent No. 1 gave a heavy blow by a Kakut (Chaff cutter) on the neck of the deceased. The incident was seen by PWs. 7 to 11. The deceased died on the spot. The Police Officer, PW13, prepared an inquest report in the presence of PWs 7 and 8 and a First Information Report was lodged. c In the appeal before this Court, on behalf of the appellants it was contended that the High Court rejected the evidence of the eye witnesses, PWs 7 and 8, on the ground of discrepancy in the timings of preparation of inquest report and the absence of the names of the assailants in the same; and that the High Court wrongly rejected the evidence of the D remaining eye witnesses, PWs 9 to 11, on the ground of minor discrepan- cies in their evidence without showing their case diary statements recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 nor were the said contradictions exhibited and placed on record. E On behalf of the respondents it was contended that a trifling matter like dispute over price of milk could hardly give rise to tbe commission of an offence like murder. Allowing the appeal partly, this Court F HELD 1. Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 con- templates the preparation of an inquest report by the police officer in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood and draw up a report of apparent cause of death, describing such wounds, fractures, bruises and other marks of injury as may be found on the body stating in what manner or by what weapon or instrument (if any) such G marks appeared to have been inflicted. A perusal of Section 174(1) would go to show that it does not require anywhere to mention the names of assailants. It was, therefore, neither incumbent upon the police officer, PW 13, who prepared the inquest report, to mention the names of the as- sailants nor was it necessary for the eye witnesses PWs 7 and 8 who are H witnesses to the said inquest, to insist the mention of the names of the - MAHENDRARAI v. MJTiiILESH 83 assailants in the said inquest report. As regards the time of preparation A of the inquest report it is hardly of any consequence in the present case. It is just possible that the witnesses did not remember the exact time of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.