LexRAJA@ SASIKUMAR & ANR. versus STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 9 S.C.R. 230 RAJA@ SASIKUMAR & ANR. V. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE (Criminal Appeal No. 1839 of 2009) AUGUST 22, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI AND RANJAN GOGOi, J.] PENAL CODE, 1860: c s. 302134 - Murder - Conviction of 3 out of 7 accused - Appeal. by two of the convicts -- Held: In a case of several accused persons, on the same set of evidence, if it is possible to remove the chaff from the grain, then the court would not be committing any mistake in sustaining the prosecution case 0 against whom the evidence is shown to be intact - In the instant case, testimonies of PWs are acceptable insofar as the involvement of appellants in the crime is concerned -- The conclusion arrived at by High Court is concurred with. E F FIR: Contents of FIR - Witnesses not named in complaint - Held: There is no need to mention all the details graphically in the complaint and it depends upon so many factors such as condition of the injured etc. The two appellants along with five others, were prosecuted for committing offences punishable u/ss 302/ 34, 120-8 and 342 IPC. The prosecution case was t.';',d'c -ill will between a car cleaner and a car driv~ 'oecause of a G woman (PW 6), created bad ':,',ood between their respective supporters, ni!.~.e.ly, A-7 and deceased 'B'. On the date of incid~~;t A-1 to A-6 attacked 'B' who went inside the ~~ed of PW3 and fell down. PW 2 and PW 3 ~ook, ~.Im to hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries. PW 2 then lodged a complaint and the police registered H 230 RAJA @ SASIKUMAR v. STATE THROUGH 231 INSPECTOR OF POLICE the FIR. The trial court convicted A-1 to A-6 u/ss 302/34 A and 342 IPC. A-1 to A-7 were acquitted of the charge u/s 120-B IPC; and A-7 was acquitted of all the charges. The High Court affirmed the conviction of A-1 to A-3 u/s 302 IPC and acquitted the remaining accused. Aggrieved, A- 2 and A-3 filed the appeal. B Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 If the prosecution case is the same against all the accused or with regard to some of the accused on the same set of evidence available on record and if it is C possible to remove the chaff from the grain, then the court would not be committing any mistake in sustaining the prosecution case against whom the evidence is shown to be intact. [Para 7] [236-F-G] 1.2 It is true that in the earliest information, there was no reference to the presence of PWs 2 to 5. However, the High Court has rightly observed that there is no need to mention all the details graphically in the complaint afld it depends upon so many factors such as comlition of the injured etc. The FIR was registered based on the written complaint made by the c~mplainant (PW-2). In the complaint PW-2 ha,~ 1mplicated A-1, A-2 and A-3, and specifically st:(ed that they inflicted fatal injuries on the dece~oed and. that with the aid of PW-3 he admitted the deceased in the Government Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. The same has been endorsed D E F by the Inspector. The genesis of the crime is also mentioned in the complaint. There was no delay in making the complaint and the same was duly registered by the police. PW-2 is a local resident. In his evidence, G he deposed that he knew all the accused persons. The injuries and other aspects have been noted in the Accident Register and a copy of the same has been marked as Ext. P-18. Though the Doctor who issued Ext. P-18 has not been examined, all the details have been H 232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 9 S.C.R. A e~plained by the Doctor who conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased. It is also noted that PW-3 was also present in the hospital along with PW-2. The evidence of PW 2 has been corroborated by PW 3, another local resident. The name of PW-3 has also been B mentioned in the accident register (Ex. P-18). [para 8-12) [236-G-H; 237-A-D, F-H; 238-B-C, F-H; 239-A-C] 1.3 There is no valid reason to reject the evidence of eye-witnesses, viz., PWs 2 and 3. The prosecution has established the motive for the commission of offence. C The variations in the statements of PWs 2 and 3 and the Investigating Officer (PW-14) are negligible. The testimonies of PWs 2 and 3 are acceptable insofar as the involvement of A-2 and A-3 in the crime in question is concerned. This Court concurs with the conclusion D arrived at by the High Court. [Para 12-13) [239-C-D, E-F] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.