LexONKAR LAL versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 195 ~. i ~ ONKAR LAL A \I. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 323 of 2007) MARCH 31, 2009 B [S.B. SINHA, DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder - Prosecution - Eye-witnesses to the incident- Their names mentioned in FIR c - FIR lodged within reasonable time - Recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of the accused - Conviction by courts below - On app_eal, held: Prosecution case proved - Accused liable to be convicted - The witnesses were --;I independent - The case cannot come within purview of s. 304 D /PC in view of the nature of injuries caused. Appellant-accused was prosecuted u/s. 302 IPC for having caused death of one person. Weapon of offence was seized at the instance of the accused. During trial 4 E out of 7 eye-witnesses turned hostile. Trial court convicted the accused, placing reliance on eye- witnesses and other PWs. High Court confirmed the conviction. ~ 1 In appeal to this court appellant-accused contended F that prosecution has failed to prove its case in view of the facts that there was no motive; that two of the witnesses could not be termed as eye-witnesses and their names were also not mentioned in FIR; that there was no blood-stain on the seized weapon. Alternatively G it was contended that only an offence u/s.304 (Part II) IPC .,, was made out. .... Dismissing the appeal, the Court 195 H .. 196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R. A HELD: 1.1 The prosecution has failed to prove any motive on the part of the appellant to commit the offence. However, the prosecution case is found to have been proved by several eye-witnesses who admittedly have no animosity towards the appellant. Indisputably, the B . appellant was closely related to the deceased being his uncle. They were residents of the same village. Both were known to the villagers for a long time. It was a moonlit night. Cards were being played which could not have been done unless there was sufficient light. The c deceased had suffered as many as six injuries. On being arrested the appellant made a confession leading to recovery of a sword. Presence of the lamp at the place of occurrence has been disclosed by several prosecution witnesses. Although there appears to be 0 some contradictions as to who had brought it or who had , __ lit it, the same is not of much significance. [Paras 12, 13, 14 and 15] [200-F-H; 201-A, E, FJ 1.2. The First Information Report was lodged within a reasonable time. The very fact that the First Information E Report was lodged almost immediately after the occurrence had taken place by a person who had no enmity/animosity with the appellant clearly shows that he had not been falsely implicated. (Paras 16 and 17] [202- B-C] . F 1.3. Having regard to the materials brought on record by the prosecution, there is no doubt that the statements made by the first informant (PW-4) has been corroborated in material particulars by other witnesses. Some of the witnesses who have been declared hostile have also G supported the prosecution case in part. [Para 23] (203- H; 204-A-B] H ' 1.4. Some of the prosecution witnesses were related to the deceased. Their presence has been established ONKAR LAL v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 197 ...,_ \ .. beyond any shadow of doubt. No suggestion had been A put to any one of the said witnesses that they had any enmity against the accused. [Para 23) (204-C] 2. In a case of this nature where the appellant had come with a sword and hit the deceased more than once, B ''-"' leading to his death, the same, would not come within the purview of the second part of Section 304 IPC. The intention on the part of the accused to cause death or cause such injury which would likely to cause death is apparent. The deceased was hit with the sword on a vital c part of the body as he was assaulted repeatedly. [Para 23) (204-D] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 323 of 2007. D ,..... ~' From the Judgment & Order dated 26.10.2006 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2002. Kuna! Verma and Raju! Shrivastav (for S.K. Verma) for the E Appellant. R.P. Gupta, Upasana Nath, Sunny Chaudhary and Aditya Singh (for C.D. Singh) for the Respondents. ~. The Judgment of the Court was deliver~d by F i S.B. SINHA, J. 1. This appeal by special leave has been preferred by the appellant questioni
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.