LexMAHENDRA SINGH versus STATE OF M. P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MAHENDRA SINGH ,. v. STATEOFM.P. APRIL 5, 2007 B [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] .... -- Penal Code, I 860: c Ss. 302132-Deceased was attacked in the presence of mother PW-I- Her evidence corroborated by tho; post mortem t.eport~Hence PWI was reliable witness and conviction can be based on her evidence-Non-seizure of Chappa/ and blood stained clothes of PW-I-Held, would not be fatal to prosecution case as deficiency in investigation would not stand in way of .. Court at finding of guilt if it is otherwise proved-Evidence-Sole eye- D witness-Criminal trial-Deficiency in investigation. .> Prosecution case was that the parties were related to each other. The appellant-accused had borrowed the bull belonging to the complainant (PW- ..... 1) for carrying fodder. When PW-1 and her son '.A' went to take it back, appellant and his co-accused 'H' refused to return it Both 'A' and PW-I went E to the hut of accused persons and tried the take the bull quietly whereupon appellant and 'H' came from behind and. assaulted 'A' with .'bake' and 'luhangi'. 'A' died on spot. Trial court relied upoq the testimony of PW-1.and convicted accused persons u·nder ss.302/34 and 324/34 IPC. The High Court while upholding the conviction of the appellant, found the said 'H' guilty only under F s.304 s.304 Part I IPC. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court ~ HELD: 1. Nothing has been pointed to discredit testimony of PW-1. Her demeanour has been noticed by the Trial Judge. She demonstrated as to how G and in what manner the accused persons killed her son and how she tried to save him from repeated assault on him with sharp weapons. She, in· her statement, fully supported the contents of the First Information Report. According to her, the police came at the spot in a jeep at about 10 a.m. and recorded her statement. Therefore, PW-1 was a reliable witness. Her · __.. -... evidence, was also corroborated by the post mortem report which was proved H 892 :/ MAHENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF M.P. 893 by PW-4. [Para 101 [896-B-CJ 2. It is now a well-settled principle of law that conviction can be based on the testimony ofa sole eye-witness. (Para 11] [896-H; 897-A] A Ramji Surjya Padvi and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, (19831 3 SCC 629; Anil Phukan v. State of Assam, [19931 3 SCC 282 and Sewaka Alis B Ramsewak v. State of M. P. and Anr., [2001) 10 SCC 1, relied on. 3.1. It may be true that the chappal and blood stained clothes of PW-1 were not seized but it is also well-known that deficiency in investigation shall not stand in the way of the court in arriving at a finding of guilt if it is otherwise found to have been proved. So far as the contention that the First C Information Report was ante-timed, there is no reason to accept the same. Occurrence bad taken place on 27.06.1995 in the morning. All material witnesses were examined by the Investigating Officer on that very day. The post mortem examination was also held at 3 p.m. on that day. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, therefore, as has rightly been found by the Trial Judge as also D the High Court, merely made a mistake in putting the date as 26.06.1995 instead of27.06.1995. [Paras 12, 13 and 14) (897-B-D] Rotash v. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 13 SCALE 186 and Acharaparambath Pradeepan and Anr. v. State of Kera/a, (2006) 13 SCALE '"' 600, relied on. E 3.2. The very fact that some digested food was found in the stomach of the deceased, the same by itself was sufficient to show that he had taken food only in the morning of that date, i.e., within four hours from his death. Even if he had taken some food, the same may not be within the knowledge of PW-1. [Para 15) (897-EJ F 4. Absence of motive is also not a relevant factor in this case. The reason for the appellant doing away with the deceased is evident He had taken back the bull without the consent of the accused persons. They must have become enraged because of the said act of the deceased and his mother. [897-F) . [Para 161 G 5. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. If the motive as assigned by the prosecution as against the appellant and the said 'H' for commission of the said offence was not correct, nothing has been shown as to why despite such close relationship between the parties, they would H 894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R. A be falsely implicated. [Para 171 [897-H; 898-AJ . CRIMINAL APPBLLATE'
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.