LexNAND KUMAR versus STATE OF CHHATIISGARH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 12 S.C.R. 1146 NANO KUMAR v. STATE OF CHHATIISGARH (Criminal Appeal No. 906 of 2012) OCTOBER 31, 2014 [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 rlw ss.149, 148 - Unlawful C assembly - Murder - Three deiceased - Weapons of offence including lathis, battle axe, sword and rods - Conviction of accused-appellants - Justification - Held: Justified - Ocular evidence of two eye witnesse's (PWs 1 and 3) conclusively prove not only the involvement of accused persons but their o actual active role in killing the three persons - Corroboration from medical evidence of thre,e doctors PW12 and 13 and 14 and their respective post-mo1tem reports (Exs-P-56, 59 and 61) - Accused persons did not listen to the prayer of PWs1 and 3 and with a pre-deterrmned motive killed the deceased E persons by beating them dw3 to which two of them died on the spot and one succumbecf in the hospital after some time - PWs-1 and 3 elaborately narrated the entire incident by taking the names of every accused whom they knew to be the residents of the same area. F Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 141, 142 and 149 - Unlawful assembly - Common obje«i:t - Circumstances, in which a member of an unlawful assembly can be held to have committed an offence in pursuance of the common object of such assembly of which he is a member - Principles of law G discussed. H Evidence - Related witness - Appreciation of - Murder case - Plea that since Pv1fs 1 and 3 were in close relation 1146 NAND KUMAR v. STATE OF CHHATIISGARH 1147 with the deceased persons being wife/mother or daughter/ A sister and that they should not be believed for want of evidence of any independent witness, rejected. Evidence - Evidence of witness - Discrepancies - Appreciation of. B Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD:1.1. In the case on hand, the mother and daughter saw from their naked eyes that their father/ husband and two sons/brothers were being killed in their c presence with the use of Lathis, battle axe, sword and rods by the accused persons mercilessly and both the helpless ladies standing in front of the mob (accused persons) with folded hands praying "please do not kill them and leave them". The accused persons did not 0 listen to their prayer and with a pre-determine~ motive killed the deceased persons by beating them due to which two of them died on the spot and one succumbed in the hospital after some time. The sworn testimonies of these two eye-witnesses remained consistent throughout on material issues. Indeed, there is no valid reason for E this Court to disbelieve them. [Paras 27, 28] [1161-B-E] 1.2. When several people participate in commission of an offence with deadly weapons and attack one or more persons with an intention to kill them then the F witnesses who are closely related to the victim(s) are not expected to describe the incident in graphic detail and with such precision that which member and in what manner he participated in the commission of offence. Their evidence is required to be appreciated in its totality. G In the case on hand, PWs-1 and 3 elaborately narrated the entire incident by taking the names of every accused whom they knew to be the residents of the same area. The law does not say that the prosecution must examine H 1148 SUPREME COURT REPOF:TS [2014] 12 S.C.R. A all the eye-witnesses cited by the prosecution. When the evidence of two eye-witnesses, PWs 1 and 3 was found worthy of acceptance to prove the case then it was not necessary for the prosecution to examine any more eye- witnesses. It is for the prosecution to decide as to how 8 many and who should be examined as their witnesses for proving their case. [Paras 33, 34, 36) [1163-C-H] Masalti etc. etc. vs. State of U.P. AIR 1965 SC 202: 1964 SCR 133; Om Prakash vs. State of Haryana (2014) 5 SCC 753; Da/bir Kaur and Ors. vs. State of Punjab (1976) C 4 SCC 158: 1977 (1) SCR 280; Harbans l<aur and Anr. vs. D E F G H State of Haryana (2005) 9 SCC 195: 2005 (2) SCR 450; Namdeo vs.State of Maharashtra (2007) 14 SCC 150: 2007 (3) SCR 939 and Munshi Prasaa 1 and Ors. vs. State of Bihar (2002) 1 sec 351: 2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 25 - relied on. Baladin and Ors. vs. State of' Uttar Pradesh AIR 1956 SC 181 -referred to. Case Law Reference: AIR 1956 SC 181 referred to Para 22 1964 SCR 133 relied on Para 22 (2014) 5 sec 753 relied on Para 23 1977 (1) SCR 280 r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.