PRAHALAD PATEL versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471 · Decided: 02-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

--
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 471 
PRAHALAD PATEL 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1209 of 2007) 
MARCH 2, 2011 
[P. S.ATHASIVAM AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
A 
B 
s.302 - Murder - Conviction by trial court - Upheld by c 
High Court - HELD: The prosecution has proved that on a 
petty issuf1, the accused had a grudge against the victim, and 
on the date of incident, in presence of the eye-witness caused 
fatal injuries by axe to the victim - The prosecution by way of 
medical evidence, the evidence of eye-witness and other 0 
.witnesses, seizure of the axe at the instance of the accused, 
· ahd the FSL report has proved its case against the accused 
beyond doubt - There is no ground for interference with the 
judgments of courts below - Constitution. of India, 1950 -
Article 136. 
E 
CONSTITUT/Of:J OF IND/A, 1950: 
Article 136 - Appeal against judgment of High Court 
upholding conviction of accused as recorded by trial court -
HELD: It is settled law that when the trial court and the . F 
appellate court, on appreciation of evidence, by relying on 
acceptable materials, arrived at a conc/Lision, ·in the absence 
·of perversity in such a conclusion, interference by Supreme 
Court exercising'jurisdiction under Article 136 is not warranted 
- Penal Code, 1860 - s.302. 
The accused - appellant was prosecuted fo.r causing 
the. death of the brother of PWs.2 and 7. The prosecution 
case was that over a petty issue of forbearing the 
471 
G 
H 
472 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 
A accused from throwing grass on the path, he bore a 
grudge against the brother of PWs 2 and 7. On the date 
of incident when the victim was breaking stones in the 
mine, the accused went there with an axe and caused 
several axe injuries to the victim, who ultimately died in 
B the hospital in an unconscious stage. The incident was 
witnessed by PW 1, the fellow worker in the mine, who 
informed victim's brother and also lodged the FIR. The 
trial court convicted the accused of the offence 
punishable u/s 302 IPC and sentc!nced him to 
c Imprisonment for life. The High Court upheld the 
conviction and the sentence. Aggrieved, the accused flied 
the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1.1 The evidence of eye-witness PW-1 and his 
statement (Ext. P-1), the statement of the doctor (PW-16) 
and his report (Ext. P-21) clearly prove that the death of 
victim was homicidal. It is true that in the medical 
examination report (Ext. P-10), prepared by the doctor 
E (PW-9), all the injuries mentioned in the autopsy report 
have not been noted. However, as rightly observed by the 
High Court, sometimes some injuries may not be visible 
after passage of time. This Court also verified both the 
reports and found that the said discrepancy is not 
. F material to the prosecution case. [para 4-5] [476-G; 477-
F-H] 
-----
1.2 The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of 
PW-1, the eye-witness to the incident, who also narrated 
the earlier incident about throwing bushes on the path-
G way and the altercation between the accused and the 
deceased and also the fact that he accompanied the 
deceased to the mine. There is no reason to disbelieve 
• his version. Apart from this, it was PW-1 who took the 
injured to the hospital and made a complaint In the Police 
H Station. Besides, the prosecution has also examined PW-
--
PRAHALAD PATEL v. STATE OF MADHYA 
473 
PRADESH 
2 and PW-7-two brothers of the deceased. Both of them, 
A 
in their evidence, have affirmed that PW-1 had come to 
their house and informed them that the accused 
1 assaulted their brother with an axe. They further narrated 
that the victim was rushed to the Hospital and on the way, 
PW-1 made a complaint to the police. Though, PWs 2 and 
B 
7 are brothers of the deceased, relationship is not a factor 
to affect credibility of a witness. Their evidence fully 
corroborates with the evidence of PW-1 about the manner 
of occurrence and he witnessed the same. [para 6] [478-
A-E] 
C 
lsrar vs. State of U.P. 2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 695 = (2005) 
9 SCC 616 and S. Sudershan Reddy vs. State of A.P., (2006) 
10 sec 163 =AIR 2006 sc .2716 - relied on. 
1.3 The doctor (PW-16) has observed that the death 
D 
. was due to the injuries sustained. The weapon of offence, 
namely, axe, was seized at the Instance of the accused. 
The report from the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ext. P-
17) shows that the blood found on the axe was human 
blood. [para 7] [478-F-G] 
E 
2. It is 

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