MANILAL HIRAMAN CHAUDHARI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 817 · Decided: 09-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

MANILAL HIRAMAN CHAUDHARI 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
OCTOBER 09, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
B 
~' 
Penal Code, J 860--ss.302134 and 506-Murder-lncident proved 
by eye-witness-Motive for the offence proved-Recovery of weapons 
at the behest of the accused persons-Blood on the weapon found to c 
be that of the blood-group of the deceased-Trial Court convicting 
the accused uls 302134 and J 20B-High Court convicting the accused 
u/s 302134 and 506-In appeal, held: In the facts of the case, conviction 
justified 
Appellant-accused No. 2 along with accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 D 
-.,· 
were tried for having committed murder of one person. Prosecution 
case was that the deceased had been an accused in the case of murder 
of the father of appellant and accused No. 3. On the date of cremation 
of his father, appellant had ta.ken a vow to take revenge upon the 
E 
deceased. While the deceased was going on a motorcycle with PW-
4, accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 parked their Maruti Van driven by PW-
5, by the side of the road and stopped the motorcycle. They assaulted 
the deceased. They also threatened PW-4 and he ran away from the 
--i' 
spot, took a vehicle of a passerby and lodged FIR. The deceased 
had also disclosed the names of the deceased persons to a passerby F 
(PW-6). 
During trial, PW 4 and PW-5 were examined as eye-witnesses. 
PW-2 had deposed categorically regarding the vow taken by the 
< > 
appellant for killing the deceased. Trial Court convicted all the G 
accused u/s 302/34 and Section 1208 IPC. On appeal, High Court 
set aside the conviction and sentence of accused No-1. Accused Nos. 
2, 3 and 4 were convicted u/s 302/34 IPC. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were 
further convicted u/s 341134 IPC. Accused No-2 was further 
817 
H 
818 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 10 S.C.R. 
A convicted u/s 506 IPC. Appeal of accused No-4 had been dismissed 
by this Court and Accused No-3 did not prefer any appeal. 
Appellant, in the present appeal contended that statements of 
PWs 4, 5 and 6 are not reliable; that the fact of the vow taken by the 
appellant could not be said to have been proved, in as much as no 
B complaint was made, nor any person was informed in that regard; 
that non-examination of the motorcyclist with whom PW-4 had gone 
and of the owner ofMaruti Van to whom PW-5 had disclosed the 
incident are material. 
c 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. There is no infitmity in the impugned judgment. Apart 
from the direct evidence of PWs 4, 5 and 6, that motive for 
commission of the offence has also been proved by PW-2. The fact 
that the First Information Report was lodged against Accused No. 
D 2 and his father for attempting murder of the deceased and criminal 
case was registered against the deceased and some 8-9 persons for 
committing the murder of father of Accused No. 2 is not disputed. 
[Paras! 7and19] [825-F, G; 826-B] 
E 
2. PW-2 categorically stated about the vow taken by the 
appellant herein for killing the deceased. It may be true that he did 
not inform the police or others, but the same by itself, cannot be a 
ground for discarding his evidence. [Para 6] [822-B] 
3. The fact that PW-4 was inimically disposed of towards the 
F accused persons, by itself would not be a valid ground to discredit 
PW 4, who is otherwise truthful. It may be true that the accused and 
the complainant are two groups in the said village. PW-4 accepted 
the said fact. [Paras 7 and 8] [822-F, G, H] 
G 
4. PW-5 was an independent witness. He was driving the Maruti 
Van wherein the accused persons were travelling. He had no axe to 
grind. He gave a vivid description in regard the places visited by 
the accused persons. He was an eye-witness to the occurrence. He 
intended to flee away from the place, but he was threatened by the 
H accused. They, after assaulting the deceased sat in the said vehicle 
• 
MANILAL HIRAMAN CHAUDHARI v. ST ATE 
819 
and asked him to take them to a temple. They reached there in the A 
evening. There also he was threatened. He thereafter came and 
disclosed the incident to the owner of the vehicle. 
[Para lOJ [823-C, DJ 
5. PW-6 who found the deceased in an injured condition, 
intended to ascertain from him the names of the assailants. The B 
deceased disclosed the same to him. Both the courts below have 
placed implicit reliance on the testimony of this witness also. It 
cannot be said that it was impossible for the deceased to disclose 
the names of the assailants as according to the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.