LexMD. ISHAQUE AND OTHERS versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 5 S.C.R. 518 MD. ISHAQUE AND OTHERS V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS (Criminal Appeal No. 1421 of 2007) MAY 3, 2013 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s.304 Part I - Number of persons forced out of their houses - Assaulted with various weapons C - Death of one person and serious injuries to three others (PWs 1, 2 and 4) - Conviction of accused-appellants uls.302 - Justification - Held: PWs 1 to 6 subjected to lengthy cross- examination, but nothing significant to discredit their evidence - Mere fact that some witnesses were interested witnesses, D not a ground to discard their evidence, when evidence taken. as a whole supported the case of the prosecution -:- PW1, PW2, PW4 sustained serious injuries, and their evidence was believed by the court - Prosecution succeeded in proving the place of occu"ence, the time of occurrence as well as the E manner of assault made on injured persons who were all examined by the Court and their evidence fully co"oborated the prosecution case - Prosecution successfully proved that it was the appellants and others who had committed the crime - Several injuries were caused by the appellants on the vital F parts of the deceased and the injured persons, with dangerous weapons and the injuries were sufficient, as certified by the doctor, in the ordinary course of nature to cause death - Appellants caused the injuries with deadly weapons, therefore, intention can be presumed regarding causing G injuries likely to cause death, which falls uls.304 Part I - Conviction therefore converted to that uls.304 Part I with RI of 10 years and fine of Rs.5,000/-each - 50% of the money recovered as fine to be paid to wife of the deceased as compensation. H 518 MD. ISHAQUE v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 519 Evidence - Witness - Injured witness - Appreciation of. A Evidence - Witness - Interested witness - Appreciation of. The prosecution case is that some 200-250 persons including the accused-appellants, forced out a number of B persons from their houses, and then assaulted them with various sharp cutting weapons as well as blunt weapons. One victim succumbed to his injuries while three other victims, PWs 1, 2 and 4 sustained grievous injuries. PW3, 5 and 6 escaped from the place of assault. The trial court c convicted the appellants under Section 302 IPC and some other penal sections. The conviction was affirmed by the High Court, and therefore the instant,appeal. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. PW-1, in his statement, has categorically stated that the incident had occurred on 5.7.1983 at Siktahar .and his evidence finds full support from the evidence adduced by the Investigating Officer PW20. Facts indicate that an incident had taken place on 4.7.1983 at village Malopara, which resulted in the death of 13 persons and due to that occurrence, there was an atmosphere of terror over the surrounding villages and also as a sequel of that massacre of Malopara, Siktahar village was attacked. PWs1 and 6 were directly affected by the incident that had occurred at Siktahar, in which the involvement of the appellants was clearly established. PWs 1 to 6 were subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but nothing significant was brought out to discredit their evidence. [Para 10] [525-A-D] 2. The mere fact that some of the witnesses are interested witnesses, that by itself is not a ground to discard their evidence, when the evidence taken as a whole supports the case of the prosecution. [Para 11] [525-H; 526-A] D E F G H 520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R. A Hari Obula Reddy and Ors. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (1981) 3 sec 675 - relied on. 3. PW1, PW2, PW4 sustained serious injuries, and their evidence was believed by the court. It is trite law that the testimony of injured witnesses is entitled to great B weight and it is unlikely that they would spare the real culprit and implicate an innocent person. Of course, there is no immutable rule of appreciation of evidence that the evidence of injured witnesses should be mechanically accepted, it also has to be in consonance with C probabilities. In the instant case, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the place of occurrence, the time of occurrence as well as the manner of assault made on injured persons who are all examined by the Court and their evidence fully corroborates the prosecution case. D There is sufficient evide
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.