LexMUKUL MAHTO AND ORS. versus STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 480 A MUKUL MAHTO AND ORS. '1- ; v. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 862-863 of 2001) B OCTOBER 15, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] ·>---- Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 326 rlw S; 34 - Accused assault- w c ing deceased with lathi and axe resulting in his death - Eye- witnesses also injured - Acquittal by trial court since accusa- tion not established - However, conviction uls. 326 rlw s. 34 by High Court considering the manner of assault and the sur- rounding factors - Interference with - Held: Not called for - D High Court held that the evidence of prosecution witnesses regarding the presence and participation of accused in the occurrence was reliable and truthful - Victims of assault would ( -r- not normally spare the real culprits and falsely implicate in- nocent accused persons - Also evidence of informant of con- E siderable significance - Further, non-examination of doctor who examined the witnesses not fatal as a/so absence of in- } cised wound when weapon of assault was axe. According to the prosecution ·case, on the fateful day, ~- r· accused persons way laid the deceased and abused him. F When the deceased retorted back, ac~used persons as- saulted the deceased with lathi and axe. On hearing the le'- cries, the informant and PW-3, PW-8, PW-7 rushed from their house to save the deceased and they were also as- saulted. Three villagers witnessed the incident. The de- :G ceased and the injured prosecution witnesses were taken to the hospital. Two days later, the deceased succumbed to his injuries. FIR was lodged. Investigation was carried ~· out. Accused were charged u/s 302 r/w s. 34 IPC. Trial court ~ acquitted them since the accusations were not estab- H 480 t; MUKUL MAHTO & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 481 &ANR. ~ lished. However, High Court set aside the acquittal and A I convicted the accused u/s. 326 r/w s. 34 IPC and imposed rigourous imprisonment for four years. Accused D was convicted for offence punishable u/s 324 IPC and sen- tenced to one year imprisonment. Hence the present ap- peals. B Dismissing the appeals, the Court ----'( HELD: 1.1 The High Court has referred to the evi- ..,.. dence of PWs 3, 7 and 8. It has been indicated that the doctor who examined these witnesses and the deceased c initially, has not been examined during trial. Since the ho- micidal death has not been disputed, the non-examination of the doctor is not fatal. Another plea which found accep- tance by trial Court was the absence of incised wound when weapon of assault was axe. The witnesses had also stated D about use of lathi. It is also to be noted that, as done by the -+ High Court that axes which are generally used in villages for cutting trees and branches are not so sharp like sword or knife and when used on the head, can also cause lacer- ated injuries. [Para 6] [485-8-C-D] E Ch. Madhusudhana Reddy v. State of A.P 1994 SCC (Crl.) 275 - referred to. 1.2 Even if the witnesses had not suffered any inju- ries yet their version as eye witnesses if credible and co- gent can be accepted and acted upon and there is no rea- F - f son to discard their evidence on the ground that a doctor who examined their injuries was not examined. The High Court has concluded that the evidence of the prosecu- tion witnesses regarding the presence and participation of the accused in the occurrence is reliable and truthful. G The victims of assault would not normally spare the real j!- culprits and falsely implicate innocent accused persons. Their evidence clearly shows that the deceased was ly- ing injured at the spot where the accused persons were present and they assaulted PWs 3, 7 and 8 when they went H 482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. A to rescue him. With reference to the evidence it has been noticed by the High Court that the common house of the deceased and PWs 3, 7 and 8, the eye witnesses is at a very_ short distance and it is quite natural that on hearing alarm they had rushed to the place of occurrence. Apart , B from that the evidence of PW-10 the informant is of con- siderable significance. The High Court has noted that there were some exaggeration in his statement though reading the same carefully alongwith the evidence of PWs 3, 7 and 8 lends support to the prosecution case. [Paras 7 c and 8] [485-E-F-G] 1.3 The High Court found the present appellants guilty. But considering the manner
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.