LexMATHURA PRASHAD AND ANR. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~ - '1) ... ~ '"'( MATHURA PRASHAD AND ANR. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH OCTOBER 4, 1991 [S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.) Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136--Criminal appeal-Concur- rent findings of fact--lnterference by Supreme Court--Circumstances indi- coted. Indian Penal Code, 1860--Sections 302134-Conviction under -Ap- preciation of evidence by Supreme Court in appeal-Non-inclusion of appellant's names in the paper wherein deceased wrote the name of assailant and inquest report-Inconsistency of witness--Evidence on appellant's par- ticipation~eld guilt of the appellants-accused not proved. According to the prosecution, when the deceased a petition-writer, was sleeping in a room with his wife (PW.19) on the ill-fated night, he heard someone knocking at the door. The deceased switched on the light and opened the door. The accused· (A.1 and A.2) entered his room. They whipped up their knives and gave stab wounds; one on the chest, another on the back while bending. They also slapped and fisted the deceased. It was further stated that the second appellant (A 5) caught hold of the deceased and banged him against the wall repeatedly. PW 19 tried to save her husband but she was pushed aside. During the course of the occurrence; a gold 'PUTRI' which PW 19 was wearing, was attempted to be snatched away from her. The eldest daughter of the deceased, PW 1, who was sleeping in a room on the first floor, on hearing the cry, got down and saw the appellants and the other accused leaving her father's room. The appellants while running away took with them a box containing some clothes and other articles belonging to PW 1 and chained the doors in such a way that the other inmates of the house could not reach the spot.. A B c D E F G The deceased's son, PW 3, who was sleeping in another room reached the spot. PW 15, a tenant in an adjoining room on hearing the distress cry of PW 19, wanted to come out of his room but he could not do H 425 426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991] SUPP. i S. C.R. A so as the house was chained from outside. He came to the spot after the door was opened. All the witnesses saw bleeding injuries on the body of the deceased who was unable to speak. PW 3, at the instance of his deceased father brought a pen and a piece of paper on which the injured deceased wrote B 'Guiab Chand' and thereafter became unconscious, and he was then taken to the Government hc,spital where he succumbed to bis injuries. The two appellants (A4 and AS before the Trial Court) along with three others were tried u/s. 302 IPC or u/s. 302/149 and u/s. 396, for causing C the death of the deceased, accused No. 2 stabbing the deceased with a knife and the rest of the accused assaulting him and for committing the offence ofdacoity. The Trial Court found the third accused not guilty of any of the charges and acquitted him but C(;nvicted others u/s. 302 read with 34 IPC D and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life, and acquitted them of the offence u/s. 396 IPC. The High Court confirmed the conviction. The present two appellants (A4, AS) flied the present appeal against the judgment of the E High Court through special leave. The other two accused (Al and A2). preferred a separate special leave petition, which was dismissed by this Court. Allowing the appeal of the two accused (A4, AS), this Court, F HELD: 1. The powers of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution are wide but in criminal appeals, this Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, save in exceptional circumstances. [ 430 HJ G 2. Within the restrictions,-imposed by itself, this C~urt bas the undoubted power to interfere even With. findings of the fact, making no distinction between judgments of acquittal and conviction, if the High Court, in arriving at those findings has acted perversely or otherwise improperly. [431 CJ H Arunachalam v. PSR Sadha11antha11, [1979) 2 .SCC 297; State of MAlHURA PRASAD v. STAIB 427 Madras v. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer, (1958) SCR 580; Himachal Pradesh Ad- A ministration v. Om Prakash, (1972) 1 SCC 249, referred to. 3.01 The deceased was a petition writer and so in that capacity he was very well conversant as to how to draft a complaint. He asked for a pen and paper, and wrote the name, 'Guiab Chand', evidently thereby saying that Guiab Chand was the.assailant. The deceased had not written B any other name exc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.