LexMOHABBAT AND ORS. versus STATE OF M.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 1 S.C.R. 883 MOHABBAT AND ORS. v. STATE OF M.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 2009) FEBRUARY 3, 2009. [DR.ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGUL Y, J.J.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 rlw & 149, 147 and 148 - conviction of nine accused - By courts below - On the basis c of evidence of sole eye-witness - Appeal to this court by three accused - Held: On facts, prosecution failed to establish the accusations against two of the appellant-accused - Hence, acquitted - Accusation against one of the appellant-accused established. o Witness - Related witness - Reliance on - Held: Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness - But in case of plea of false implication, court to adopt careful approach in analysis thereof. Appellants-accused Nos. 7,6 and 1 were convicted u/ E s. 302 r/w 149, 147 and 148 IPC, by courts below alongwith 6 other accused, on the basis of evidence of eye-witness (PW6). In appeal, the appellants-accused contended that F their conviction was not justified as PW6, on whose version conviction was based, and also the deceased in his dying declaration, had not implicated them; and that the witness was partisan being brother of the deceased. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court G HELD: 1. It is not correct to say that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon. Merely because the eye-witnesses are family members, their evidence cannot t 883 H 884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 1 S.C.R. A per se be discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased, they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and 8 credible. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to C adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. [Paras 10 and 7] [889-A-B; 887 -H; 888-A-C] Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC 364; Guli Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 1974 (3) D SCC 698; Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614; Masalti and Ors. v. State of U.P. AIR 1965 SC 202; State + of Punjab v. Jagir Singh AIR 1973 SC 2407; Lehna v. State of Haryana 2002 (3) SCC 76; Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. State of Orissa 2002 (8) SCC 381; Babula/ Bhagwan E Khandare and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 2005(10) SCC 404; Salim Saheb v. State of M.P. 2007(1) SCC 699 and Sonelal v. State of M.P. 2008 (11) SCR 75, relied on. 2. In the instant case, PW-6 has referred to the incident in detail. He has specifically named the persons. F Though it was the stand of the State that in the dying declaration, all the accused persons were named, it appears that PWs 6 and 7 did not state about the dying declaration vis-a-vis accused Nos. 6 and 7. In view of the facts, it cannot be said that the prosecution has established the accusations so far as accused Nos. 7 G and 6 are concerned. But the prosecution has clearly established the accusations so far as accused No.1 is concerned. [Para 14] [890-C-F] Case Law Reference: H AIR 1953 SC 364 Relied on Para 8 MOHABBAT AND ORS. v. STATE OF M.P. 885 1974 (3) sec 698 Relied on Para 9 A AIR 1957 SC 614 Relied on Para 9 AIR 1965 SC 202 Relied on Para 11 AIR 1973 SC 2407 Relied on Para 12 2002 (3) sec 76 Relied on Para 12 B 2002 (8) sec 381 Relied on Para 12 2005(10) sec 404 Relied on Para 13 + 2001(1) sec 699 Relied on Para 13 2008 (11) SCR 75 Relied on Para 13 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal c No. 203 of 2009. From the Judgment and Order dated 29.3.2007 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 669 of 2001. D P.C. Agarwal, Amboj Agarwal and Santosh Singh for the Appellant. Govind Goel, C.D. Singh, Sunny Chowdhary, Vairagya Vardhan Dubey, Aitya Singh and Upasana Nath for the Respondent. E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, which by the impugned judgment
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.