PAPPI @ MEHBOOB versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 1083 · Decided: 05-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1083
PAPPI @ MEHBOOB
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
(Criminal Appeal No. 497 of  2009)
FEBRUARY  05, 2019
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – One ‘G’ was assaulted with swords
by seven persons – ‘G’ succumbed to injuries – Five accused
including appellant were tried together while two were absconding
– Appellant alone was convicted for offence punishable u/s.302,
IPC simpliciter – On appeal, held: Finding of guilt recorded by the
Trial Court against the appellant and affirmed by the High Court is
a possible view and needs no interference – Merely because the
appellant alone was convicted for the stated offence simpliciter u/
s.302, while the other co-accused were acquitted, it does not follow
that the appellant should be given the benefit of doubt despite the
clinching evidence on record to establish his guilt and involvement
in the commission of offence – Erroneous finding in favour of other
co-accused would be of no avail to the appellant whose name and
role was clearly mentioned in the FIR as also by the witnesses PW-
6 and PW-9 whose credibility remained unshaken – Appellant gave
the first blow with sword, whereafter the other accused followed
and repeatedly assaulted deceased – There is direct evidence to
establish the role of the appellant in the commission of offence –
Acquittal of the co-accused by giving benefit of doubt, by itself can
be no ground to discard the otherwise reliable evidence which has
remained unshaken – No fault can be found with the impugned
judgment affirming the finding of guilt against the appellant alone,
amongst the five accused tried together.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The finding of guilt recorded by the Trial Court
against the appellant and affirmed by the High Court is a possible
view and needs no interference. The Trial Court besides relying
on the evidence of PW-6, an injured eye-witness and PW-9, an
independent eye-witness also adverted to other circumstances
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 1083
1083
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1084
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
to record a finding of guilt against the appellant. The evidence
for recording such a finding is very much available on record.
Merely because the appellant alone has been convicted for the
stated offence simpliciter under Section 302, while the other co-
accused have been acquitted, it does not follow that the appellant
should be given the benefit of doubt despite the clinching evidence
on record to establish his guilt and involvement in the commission
of offence. It is a different matter that the same witnesses PW-6
and PW-9 have spoken about the involvement of other accused
who have now been acquitted. The reason for which the High
Court acquitted those co-accused cannot be countenanced on
the basis of the evidence on record against them. However, that
erroneous finding in their favour would be of no avail to the
appellant whose name and role has been clearly mentioned in
the FIR as also by the witnesses PW-6 and PW-9 whose credibility
has remained unshaken. The role of the appellant in the
commission of the offence has been clearly spelt out by these
witnesses. They have stated that the appellant gave the first blow
with sword, whereafter the other accused followed and repeatedly
assaulted deceased, causing as many as 67 injuries all over his
body, most of which are incised injuries,  possible  by means of a
sword. [Para 8][1089-C-G]
1.2 Besides the evidence of PW-6 and PW-9, other
circumstances such as recovery of sword at the instance of the
appellant has also been proved – as found by the Trial Court and
which finding has not been disturbed by the High Court. There is
direct evidence to establish the role of the appellant in the
commission of offence. He took the lead in assaulting ‘G’ by giving
the first sword blow. The prosecution has succeeded in
establishing that deceased suffered as many as 67 injuries, most
of which were incised wounds caused by sharp weapon like sword.
In the opinion of the doctor, the death was caused due to multiple
injuries and shock as a result of multiple fractures described in
the post-mortem report. The assault continued for quite some
time till ‘G’ was completely immobilized and stopped responding.
The participation of the appellant in giving first blow and
continuing with the assault has been spoken by the injured eye-
witness PW-6 and other eye-witness PW-9. That evidence
coupled with the circumstances as noted by the Trial Court,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G

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