LexRADHA MOHAN SINGH @ LAL SAHEB AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RADHA MOHAN SINGH @ LAL SAHEB AND ORS. A V. STATE OF U.P. JANUARY 20, 2006 [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN; ARUN KUMAR AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] B Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136-Scope of-Held, Supreme Court may interfere where on proved facts wrong inference of law is shown to have been drawn. C Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302 and 326 rlw Section 149-Five accused assaulting complainants-One killed and two got injuries-Held, it cannot be said that common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit murder of deceased or that they knew that murder is likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly-A-I convicted u/s 302-0thers convicted u/ s 326 rlw s. 149. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 392-Court of appeal-Divided in _opinion-Matter laid before another Judge-Held, the third judge is under no obligation to accept the view of one of the Judges. D E Section I 74-/nquest report-Not containing names of witnesses or F accused-Held, there is absolutely no requirement in law of mentioning details of FIR in inquest report. Evidence: Hostile witness-Evidence of-Held. can be accepted to the extent his G version is found to be dependable. Appellants-accused A-I to A-5 were prosecuted for committing murder of brother of P.W. land causing injuries to PWs I, 3 and 5. The prosecution case was that a few days earlier to the date of occurrence a 519 H RADHA MOIJANSINGH@LALSAHEB». STATEOFU.P. 521 f 1 Babu and Ors. v. The State of Uuar Pradesh, AIR (1965) SC 1467; A \ \ Hethubha v. State of Gujarat, AIR (1970) SC 1266; State of Andhra Pradesh v. P. r Appaiah, AIR (1981) SC 365; Dharam Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1964) 1 Crl.LJ 78 and Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat, [199717 sec 156, relied on. 2.1. It is well settled that while hearing an appeal under Article 136 B of the Constitution this Court will normally not enter into reappraisal or review of evidence unless the trial court or the High Court is shown to have committed an error of law or procedure and the conclusions arrived at are perverse. The court may interfere where on proved facts wrong inference of law is shown to have been drawn. (527-A-BI Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration. 119751 4 SCC 649; Mst. Dalbir Kaur and Ors. v. State of Punjab, 119761 4 SCC 158;. Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel and Ors. v. State of Gujarat, 120001 I SCC 358 and Chandra Bihari Gautam and Ors. v. State of Bihar, JT (2002) 4 SC 62, relied on. 2.2. However, in order to examine whether the findings recorded against the appellants suffer from any infirmity, the Court has gone through the evidence on record. The testimony of PW-I, who is an inju~ed witness, and PW-4 clearly establishes the guilt of the accused. The evidence c D on record clearly shows that the FIR of the incident was promptly lodged E and the testimony of PW-I, PW-4 and also PW-3 finds complete corroboration from the medical evidence on record. There is absolutely no reason to take a different view. (527-C-D; 528-B-CJ 3.1. It is well settled that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as F hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent his version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. (527-G-H; 528-A-BI Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana. AIR (1976) SC 202; Rabinder G Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa, AIR (1977) SC 170; Syed Akbar v. State of Karna/aka, AIR (1979) SC 1848 and Khujji :c~ Surendra Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1991) SC 1853, relied on. 3.2. In the instant case, even PW-3 fully supported the prosecution H 522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 I S.C.R. A case in his exl!mination-in-chief. In his cross-examination, which was ... recorded on the same date, he gave details of the weapons being carried by each of the accused and also the specific role played by them in assaulting the deceased and other injured persons. As his cross- examination could not be completed it was res•1med on the next day and B then he gave a statement that he could not see the incident on account of darkness. His testimony has been carefully examined by the trial court and also by two Judges of the High Court and they have held that the witness, on account of pressure exerted upon his by the accused, tried
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.