MENOKA MALIK AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS

Citation: [2018] 10 S.C.R. 707 · Decided: 28-08-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
707
 MENOKA MALIK AND OTHERS
v.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS
(Criminal Appeal No. 1198 of 2006)
AUGUST  28, 2018
[N. V. RAMANA AND
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss.147, 148, 149, 342, 448, 325, 326,
436, 379,  307 and 302 – Political rivalry – Mob assault – Use of
sharp and pointed weapons – Death of 5 persons and serious
injuries to several persons – Prosecution case was that the offender
party broke into the houses of the locality, destroyed household,
stole valuables and set the houses on fire and thereafter assaulted
complainant party members causing death of 5 persons and serious
injuries to 24 persons – Acquittal by trial court on benefit of doubt
– High Court found no error in acquittal order – Complainant’s
appeal against acquittal – Held: The observation of courts below
that the injuries must have been suffered in a stampede is not
convincing as there was no reason for only one group of people to
have sustained injuries in the alleged stampede – The contradictions
and improvements were minor in nature – It is natural to have certain
minor variations in the evidence of eye-witnesses, when a large
number of people had gathered to assault a smaller group of people
– In such a scenario, it is not  possible to meticulously observe all
the actions of each and every accused – The overall evidence of
these witnesses, prima facie, appeared untainted – Certain
exaggerations, improvements and embellishments would not make
the entire prosecution story doubtful – There were as many as 24
injured eye witnesses in the case and their presence cannot be
doubted – Presence of the witnesses on the spot was also not
seriously doubted by the defence during the cross-examination – In
this situation, the High Court did not apply its judicial mind in
determining whether the judgment of the trial court was perverse
inasmuch as the entire body of evidence was discarded, simply on
the basis that some of the witnesses had deposed for the first time
before the Court – High Court also did not at all consider the
  [2018] 10 S.C.R. 707
707
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
708
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
evidence concerning charges other than murder – Although, the
charges were framed on questions such as burning houses, unlawful
assembly, etc., the evidence on these questions was entirely
overlooked and no finding was made by the trial court as well as
the High Court – High Court thus failed to exercise its revisional
jurisdiction in accordance with established principles – Matter
remitted to High Court to decide the revision petition on merits in
accordance with law.
Revision: Exercise of revisional jurisdiction – Where the
material evidence was overlooked either by the trial Court or by
the appellate Court or the order is passed by considering irrelevant
evidence, the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High
Court – Penal Code, 1860.
Evidence: Embellishments or exaggerations in the testimony
–  Evidentiary value of the testimony – Held: The testimony of a
witness cannot be discarded in toto merely due to the presence of
embellishments or exaggerations –  The doctrine of falsus in uno,
falsus in omnibus, which means “false in one thing, false in
everything” is inapplicable in the Indian scenario,where the
tendency to exaggerate is common – Doctrine.
Evidence: In cases involving a large number of offenders and
a large number of victims, the evidence of only two or three witnesses
who give a consistent account of the incident is sufficient to sustain
conviction.
Evidence: Ocular and medical evidence – Conflict between
the ocular testimony and the medical evidence – Medical evidence
cannot override the evidence of ocular testimony of the witnesses –
Ocular testimony to prevail – Where the eye witnesses account is
found to be trustworthy and credible, medical opinion pointing to
alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive.
Constitution of India: Art.136 – Scope of – Held: The
restriction as contained under s.401(3) of the Cr.P.C. on the High
Court cannot restrict the powers of the Supreme Court under Art.136
of the Constitution – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
– s.401(3).
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
709
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:  1. It is open for the Supreme Court to review the
entire material and there is no limitation on its jurisdiction under
Article 136 to come to a just conclusion if it determines that the
High Court’s view was not reasonable. The restriction as
contained unde

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