LexMISHRILAL AND ORS. versus STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
/
MISHRILAL AND ORS.
A
v.
STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.
MAY I I, 2005
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.]
B
Penal Code, 1860-Sections j<J.? r/w j 49 & 148-Murder-On facts,
evidence of the eye-witnesses coupled whh the medical evidence satisfactorily
proved that the accused-appellants had committed the offence as alleged by C
the prosecution-Hence no reason to interfere with the conviction and sent~nce
of appellants as recorded by the courts below.
Criminal Trial:
Recalling of witness-Witness examined in-chief and cross-examined
fully, could not be recalled and re-examined to deny the evidence he had D
already given before the Court, even though he had given an inconsistent
statement before another Court subsequently.
Witness,givingfalse evidence-Courts should take serious action against
/ such witness.
E
According to the prosecut,ion, PWl, PW2 and father of PW3 were
grazing cattle in their fields,. when the four accused-appellants allegedly
came there atongwith their accomplices armed with various weapons such
as axe and lathi and attacked PW3's father and PW2, leading to the death
of the former. Sessions Court relying on the evidence of PWl to PW3 F
convicted the appellants under Section 302 r/w S_ection 149 IPC, and also
under Section 148 IPC. High Court too accepted the evidenc~ of.PWl to
PW3 and accordingly. affirmed the conviction and sentence of the
appellants. Hence the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It cannot be accepted that due to paucity of light, the
witnesses had no opportunity to identify the assailants for the reason that
the incident is alleged to have happened at about 6 O'Clock in the evening
and the prosecution case is that deceased as well as PW 1 and PW 2 were
259
G
H
260
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A grazing the cattle in their field at that time and there would not have been
much darkness. Moreover, in the cross-examination of PW 1, there is not
even a suggestion that there was no light and they were unable to ~ee the
incident, though, of course, there was a suggestion to the effect that the
witnesses PW 1 and PW 2 must have been standing at a distance.
B
{261-H; 262-A, BJ
2. The procedure adopted by the Sessions Judge was not strictly in
accordance with law. Once the witness was examined in-chief and cross-
examined fully, such witness should not have been recalled and re-
examined to deny the evidence he had already given before the court, even
C though that witness had given an inconsistent staten:ient before any other
court or forum subsequently. A witness could be confronted only with a
previous statement made by him. At the time of earlier examination of
PW 2, there was no such previous statement and the defence counsel did
not confront him with any statement alleged to have been made previously.
This witness must have given some other version before the Juvenile Court
D for extraneous reasons and he should not have been given a further
opportunity at a later stage to completely efface the evidence already given
by him under oath. The courts have to follow the procedures strictly and
cannot allow a witness to escape the legai action for giving false evidence
before the court on mere explanation that he had given it under the
E press1fre of the police or some other n:ason. Whenever the witness speaks
falsehood in the court, and it is proved satisfactorily, the court should take
serious action against such witnesses. (262-F, G, H; 263-A)
3. The plea that there is no evidence to show that appellant no.I and
a co-appellant caused injuries with an axe and· that there is no
F corresponding incised injury on the head of the deceased and hence the
medical evidence is in conflict with the evidence of the eye-witnesses is
also not correct as the post-mortem certificate 'shows that there was an
injury on the head of the deceased which must have been caused by
appellant no.1. Injury nos. I and 3 are on the left fronto-temporo parietal
region and mid parietal region. The blunt edge of the axe must have been
G used to cause these injuries. {263-D-E]
H
4. The evidence of the three witnesses, namely PWsl to 3, coupled
with the medical evidence satisfactorily proved that the appellants had
committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution. There is, therefore,
no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence entered against
• >
MlSHRILALv. STATE OF M.P. [BALAKRISHNAN, J.]
26Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.