RAKESH & ANOTHER versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2011] 15 S.C.R. 34 · Decided: 19-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 34 
RAKESH & ANOTHER 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 339 of 2008) 
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 - Death of PW11's 
uncle due to assault by sharp edged weapons - Testimony 
C of PW11 - Conviction of accused-appellants - Challenge to 
- Held: It was improbable that the appellants had been 
enroped falsely as promptness in lodging the FIR showed that 
there was no time for manipulation - Prompt and early 
reporting of the occurrence by PW11 with all its vivid details 
D gave assurance regarding truth of its version - PW 11 faced 
grilling cross-examination - However, no discrepancy or error · 
could be shown in spite of the fact that he was nephew of the 
deceased - PW11 gave full account of the overt acts of the 
accused while causing injuries to the deceased - He was a 
e natural witness and his testimony inspired confidence and 
was, thus, worth acceptance -
The other circumstances 
particularly, the statements of the Investigating Officer 
(PW.21) and PW9, the arrest of the accused, and recovery 
of weapons on their disclosure statements proved the 
F prosecution case - Conviction of accused-appellants 
accordingly upheld. 
Criminal Trial - Murder - Time of death - Determination 
of- Post mortem examination conducted by PW-8 - Opinion 
of PW-8 as to time of death - Held: The opinion of PW-8 that 
G death had occurred within 3 to 6 hours prior to post-mortem 
examination, does not mean that PW8 was able to fix any 
exact time of death - The physical condition of the body after 
death would depend on a large number of circumstances/ 
factors and nothing can be said with certainty - In determining 
H 
34 
RAKESH & ANR. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
35 
the issue, various factors such as age and health condition A 
of the deceased, climatic and atmospheric conditions of the 
place of occurrence and the conditions under which the body 
is preserved, are required to be considered - The.exact time 
of death cannot be established scientifically and precisely. 
Evidence - Inconsistency between medical evidence and 8 
ocular evidence - Effect of - Held: The ocular evidence would 
have primacy unless it is established that oral evidence is 
totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence. 
Evidence - Witness - Related witness - Held: Evidence C 
of related witness can be relied upon provided it is trustworthy 
- Mere relationship does not disqualify a witness - Witnesses 
who are related to the victim are as competent to depose the 
facts as any other witness - However, such evidence required 
to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before reaching o 
to a conclusion on the conviction of the accused in a given 
case. 
· 
Evidence -
Contradictions between narrations of 
witnesses - Effect of -
Held: Even if there are minor 
discrepancies bet.veen the narrations of witnesses when they 
E 
speak on details, unless such contradictions are of material 
dimensions, the same should not be used to discard the 
evidence in its entirety - Trivial discrepancy ought not to 
obliterate the otherwise acceptable evidence. 
The prosecution case was that the two appellants 
alongwith another accused caused the death of PW11's 
uncle by assaulting him with sharp edged weapons. All 
the weapons allegedly used in the crime were recovered 
F 
on the disclosure statements made by the appellants and G 
the other accused. PW.8 conducted post-mortem on the 
body of the deceased. In his opinion, there were thr~e · 
incised wounds on the body- one on the neck, one on 
the chest and another in the abdomen and all the injuries 
had been caused by sharp edged weapons. PW11 
H 
36 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R 
A testified to have witnessed the incident. 
The trial court convicted the two appellants as also 
the other accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced 
them to rigorous imprisonment for life. The conviction 
8 was upheld by the High Court. 
The appellants challenged thetr conviction before 
this Court inter a/ia on grounds 1) that the ocular evidence 
was contradictory to the medical evidence as regards the 
time of death; and 2) that the alleged eye witness PW.11 
C was closely related to the victim and none of the 
independent witnesses examined by the prosecution 
supported its case to the extent that PW.11 could be 
present on the place of occurrence at the relevant time. 
0 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
H
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.