OM PRAKASH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 8 S.C.R. 467 · Decided: 09-07-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 8 S.C.R. 467 
OM PRAKASH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No.1112 of 2011) 
JULY09, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: s.304 Part II rlw s.34 - Conviction C 
and sentence.of 7 years RI imposed by General Court Martial 
confirmed by Armed Forces Tribunal- Fight ensued between 
the appellant and another army official in a farewell party-
Deceased tried to inteNene and was abused by the appellant 
-After the party was over PW6 entered his barrack and found o 
deceased in pool of blood- Deceased was roshed to hospital 
where he was declared dead-Appellant surrendered at the 
police station and stated that he had stabbed one person 
with a knife -
Held: There was ample incriminating 
circumstances against the appellant and the complete chain E 
of circumstances consistent only with hypothesis of the guilt 
of the appellant -Minor discrepancy did not destroy the 
prosecution case - Testimony of witnesses stood firm during 
cross-examination - The confessional statement made by 
the appellant was voluntary- There was no infirmity in the F 
conviction order. · 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The evidence brought on record G 
established that on the fateful day, there was a farewell 
party, in which drinks were served; that the appellant 
entered into an altercation with PWS,_ whereby the 
467 
H 
468 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 8 S.C.R. 
A appellant fought with him and abused him and 
consequently PW5 slapped the appellant; that the 
appellant abused PW5 and the deceased; that the said 
altercation was intervened by PW4, and at that juncture 
he directed PW6 and PW7, to take the accused to his 
B living barracks; that as per the directions of the 
authority PW-6 and PW-7 guided the appellant to the 
barracks; that the deceased was found lying on the 
floor bleeding from mouth and nose and the appellant 
was found lying on his bed on his stomach with hands 
C folded beneath in the same room by PW26, at about 
0030 hours when he had returned to the barracks; that 
on being alerted by PW 26, PW13 and PW12 had made 
arrangements for taking the deceased for medical aid; 
0 
that apart from the deceased and the appellant, no one 
else was present in the room as per the testimony of 
PW18, PW26, PW12 and PW13; that PW18, and PW13, 
had witnessed the appellant leaving the room quietly via 
the rear door; that the appellant was absent from the 'fall 
E in parade' that was conducted at 0200 hours; and that 
at 0150 hours the Commanding Officer, and PW15, met 
the appellant at PS Sabina, wherein the appellant had 
surrendered. [Para 9] [478-E-H; 479-A-D] 
F 
2. The said established facts which are founded on 
proper appreciation of the evidence by the forums 
below make clear that the chain of circumstances was 
complete. What has weighed with the forums below 
was that the appellant was present in the room and had 
G escaped. The circumstances that really weighed 
against the appellant were that he had indulged in an 
altercation in the party; that he was in a drunken state 
and he was alone present in the room; and that he had 
escaped by the rear door. He b<iing present at the 
H police station and not being present at the "fall in 
OM PRAKASH v. UNION OF INDIA& ORS. · 
, 469 
parade" is circumstance which would go against him. A 
He was not able to give any explanation aboµt his 
. presence at the police station and the factum that on 
being informed by the Head constable, the army officers 
arrived at the concerned police station. The series of 
circumstance clearly established the guilt of the B 
accused and the minor discrepancies. really did not 
create any kind of dent in the testimony of the 
prosecution witnesses to treat them as reproachable 
and remotely did not destroy the prosecution version. 
The statement of the appellant recorded in the C 
proceeding under Rule 23 was proved during the GCM. 
Despite roving cross-examination, both the witnesses 
firmly stood embedded to their version. The appellant 
was asked whether he was inclined to make a statement 0 
and also apprised that he was not obliged to say 
anything unless he wanted to say. That apart, a warning 
was given to 'him that whatever he would say would be 
taken down in writing and given in evidence. Thus, there 
. was no compulsion. It was a voluntary statement and E 
that it had been done under a statutory Rule. (Paras 10, 
13, 14] [479-E-H; 480-A-D; 483-C-E; 485-B-C] 
Hema v. State 2013 (3) SCR

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