LexPRITHU @ PRITHI CHAND AND ANR. versus STATE OF H.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 765
~....,
PRITHU @ PRITHI CHAND AND ANR.
A
V.
STATE OF H.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2009
FEBRUARY 18, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY,
JJ.]
....
~
Penal Code, 1860 :
s. 304 Part I rlw s. 34 and s. 300, Exception 4 - Sudden c
quarrel - Accused allegedly gave fist blows to deceased and
hit him with stones - Acquittal by trial court - Set aside by
High Court in appeal - Held: Minor discrepancies in statement
of witnesses was inconsequential - Evidence was sufficient to
....
convict the accused - High Court right in convicting the D
r
accused persons u/s 304 Part I.
Evidence - Witness - Appreciation of - Principles re"
iterated.
According to the prosecution, In course of a quarrel,
E
the accused persons gave fist blows to the deceased and
hit him with stones. The three accused faced trial for
alleged commission of offence punishable under s.302
--1._
read with s.34 of IPC. The trial court did not find the
,.
evidence to be credible and directed acquittal of the
accused. On appeal by the State, the High Court set aside F
the order of acquittal and directed each of the accused
persons guilty of offence punishable under s.304 Part I,
IPC r/w s.34 IPC. Hence the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
G
...
HELD:1. The accused persons pleaded that the
/: '
evidence of the eye witnesses cannot be accepted as
there were omissions, contradictions and discrepancies
in the evidence of most of the prosecution witnesses. In
765
H
766
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 2 S.C.R.
A
the effort to false implication prosecution made
-,.....-~-
introduction of PW-9 an· eye witness. It is fairly settled
position in law that even if there are some omissions,
contradictions and discrepancies the entire evidence
cannot be discarded. After exercising care and caution
B and sifting the evidence to separate the truth from untruth,
exaggeration, embellishments and improvements, the
court can come to a conclusion as to whether the residual
evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. [Para 5]
"'!'"
[ 770-8]
.,._
c
2. A witness cannot be accepted to possess a
photographic memory and to recall the deals of on
t
incident verbatim. Ordinarily, it so happens that a witness
i~ overtaken by events. A witness could not have
anticipated the occurrence which very often has an
p element of surprise. The mental faculties cannot,
"
therefore, be expected to be attuned to absorb all the
"I
details. Thus, minor discrepancies were bound to occur
in the statement of witnesses. [Para 61 [ 770-F]
1\:r
E
3. The High Court analysed the evidence in the
aforesaid background and rightly came to the conclusion
that the guilt of the accused persons was established.
[Para. 7] [ 770-G]
~·
Sohra6 and Anr. V. The State of M.P. AIR (1972) SC 2020;
...
F $f{!Jte of UP. v. M.K. Anthony AIR (1985) SC 48 and Bharwada
Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat AIR (1983) SC 753 -
relied on.
Case Law Reference
G
AIR (1972) SC 2020
relied on
Para 5
AIR (1985) SC 48
relied on
Para 5
...
' ....
AIR (1983) SC 753
relied on
Para 6
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
H No. 330 of 2009
PRITHU @ PRITHI CHAND AND ANR. V.
767
STATE OF H.P.
...,
From the Judgement and Order dated 27.05.2008 of the
High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal
A
No. 150 of 1994.
Anil Nag, Narender Tyagi, for the Appellant.
Naresh K. Sharma, for the Respondent.
B
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J .
..,,
;,,
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court setting aside the c
acquittal recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Kangra, Dharamshala. Three accused persons, Bhola, Pruthu
and Dharmu faced trial for alleged commission of offence
punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal
~'
Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The High Court by the impugned D
.,..,
judgmenf set aside the order of acquittal and directed each of
\ •
the accused persons guilty of offence punishable under Section
I
~
304 Part I, IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/-.
E
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows :
Fandi Ram (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased')
J_
owed certain amount to Prehlad Chand (PW-10), merchanExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.