LexPRATHAP & ANR. versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 241 PRATHAP & ANR. v. STATE OF KERALA (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1198-1199 of 2005) · AUGUST 27, 2010 [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 -:- ss. 302 and 149 -' Murder - Deceased and one more attacking accused persons and co- C accused - In retaliation, accused and co-accused armed with deadly weapons inflicting fatal injuries-to deceased - High Court upholding. conviction of accused u/s. 3021149 but setting aside the conviction u/s. 120-B - As regard co- accused, High Court upholding acquittal of four co-accused D and also acquitting the other four co-accused convicted by trial court - On appeal, held: Facts and circumstances clearly prd.ve the existence of common object .of accused to eliminate the deceased - Accused had a clear motive - Evidence of eye-witnesses is reliable - Medical evidence E leads to the conclusion that death resulted from injuries caused by accused - Prosecution witnesses not only identified accused as assailants with swords but also indicated injuries inflicted by them on deceased ...;.. Accused don't deserve to be acquitted on the principle of parity- Thus, order F of High Court does not call for interference - Evidence - Criminal law - Common object - Principle ·of parity - Constitution of India 1950 - Article. 136. According to the prosecution case, 'K'-deceased and 'M'-CW 11 attacked the appellants. To seek revenge, the G appellants and the other accused inflicted various injuries to 'K' resulting in his death. The appellants and the other accused were tried by the Court of Session for the offences punishable u/ss. 114, 143, 147, 148, 120-B 241 H 242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 10 S.C.R. A and 30a/149 IPC. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants u/s. 30!f149 IPC, however, It set·aside the conviction<u/s.120 Ii IIDC. The High Court uphefd:Jthe acquittal~of A3 and A8 to A10 and also acquitte·d accused·no. 4, 5, 6 and 7. Therefore, the B appellants filed the instant appeat. Dismissing the appeals, the Co~rt HELD: 1.1 The trlal court as well. as the High .Court correctly reHe~ upon the unflincmf'tg, coherent and C consistent evidence given by PW 1.:.wbich leaves no · manner of doubt about the entire Seqilence of events. The evidence given by PW1 was corroborated by PW 2 in every material particular. The submission with l'egard to the scene of crime not being well lit Is without any D substance. Similarly, the criticism with regard to the . identification parade not having been held Is of no consequence, PW 1 and PW 2 clearly stated that the appellants were previously known to them. PW1 certainly even knew about the previous enmity between the IE deceasecf and the appellants. [Paras 14 and 15] [255-F; 267~C·EJ 1.2 There le no reason at all to disbelieve the evidence of the eye-witnesses. The weapons used by the F appellants and the injuries caused have been specifjcally mentioned by PW1 and PW2. Recoveries of the swords used by them were made at the Instance of the appellants. Recoveries of other weapons, clothes worn by the accused on the day of the ass~ult were also made at the instance of the other accused. Medical evidence G also leads to the conclusion that the death resulted from the injuries caused by the appellants and the other accused with their respective weapons. In view of the proven facts, it becomes evident that t_he appellants had acted with a common object to eliminate the deceased. H [Para 16] [257-F-H] ~ ,... -~',,_ . - '~-.. PRATHAP & ANR. v. STATE OF KERALA 243 Bhagwan Singh vs. State of M.P, (2002) 4 SCC 85; A Chanda vs. Stateof U.P. (2004) 5 SCC 141 ,... referred to. 1.3 It cannot be said that the appellants were perhaps unaware that the murderous assault, intended1to·be committed.by them, would, in all probability, cause the e . death of 'K'. Both the trial court as well as the High Court considered the specific injuries caused by the appellants with swords. There were 20 ante-mortem Injuries on the deceased. According to the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to injuries caused .on the chest and on the C left palm. The death could also have resulted from the cumulative effect of all other injuries. Therefore, there Is no manner of doubt that 'K' died as a result of injures caused by the appellants along with the other accused. [Para 17) [259-G-H; 260-A-B] . . . D 1.4 It is always open to a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.