RAMAN BHAI NARAN BHAL PATEL AND ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 41 · Decided: 30-11-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
RAMAN BHAI NARAN BHAl PATEL AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
NOVEMBER 30, 1999 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Law-Penal Code-Sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 326, 342 
and 352 read with Sec. 149-Appellants attacking complainant party-One 
killed due to injuries-Three injured eyewitnesses apart from dying declaration C 
supporting prosecution case-Conviction and sentence by Sessions Court 
confirmed by High Court--Upheld. 
Identification Parade-Absence of-Whether the evidence of witnesses 
becomes irrelevant-Held, N~Further held, though the evidence may be 
weak it cannot be wholly inadmissible. 
D 
Dying declaration-Non-Mention of individual names in the group of 
accused-Dying declaration supported by evidence of the other eye witnesses-
Held, the non-mention of certain names of accused is not fatal to prosecution. 
The Appellants alongwith three others were tried for offence under 
Sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 326, 342 and 452 read with Section 149 of the E 
Indian Penal Code. The present App~llants (accused Nos. 1-4 and 6 in the 
Sessions Trial) alongwith some other persons came to the premises of a 
Printing Press carrying weapons like knife, gupti, hockey stick etc. The 
accused started beating 'B' who was an employee there and seriously injured 
him. When they were questioned by a pan stall holder. 'K', the accused 1 and -F 
2 pounced upon him and caused injuries to him. When deceased, who was the 
owner of the printing press, came out of his residence which was close by, he 
was given blows with hockey stick and he was chased and given fatal blows by 
accused 1-4 and 6. Wife of deceased was present at the scene of occurrence 
along with the wife of his elder brother. The elder brother of deceased who 
was sitting in his house in the vicinity also witnessed the incident and reached G 
the place of incident after changing his clothes. He was given an axe blow and 
hockey blow by accused 1 and 2. He also saw accused 3 to 6 coming out of the 
room of deceased. He helped the two women in fixing a bandage for the deceased 
and took him to the hospital alongwith injured 'B' and 'K'. The victim died in 
the hospital and other injured were examined as eyewitnesses in the trial. 
H 
41 
42 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
The case of th~ prosecution was that there was a quarrel between the 
younger brother of deceased and the Accused No. 1 alongwith his friends on 
the previous day. During the quarrel Accused No 1 was slapped and as a result 
the accused assaulted the brother of the deceased on the day of the incident. 
On receiving a telephonic message, the PSI with other constables went 
B to the spot and arranged for removing the injured to a hospital After deceased 
underwent a preliminary treatment his statement was recorded which was 
subsequently treated as a dying declaration, as he died later in the day. Charge 
Sheet was filed against Accused 1 to 8. The Sessions judge convicted the 
Appellants (Accused 1 to 4 and 6) and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment 
C for life among other punishment. Appeal before the High Court by the 
Appellants was dismissed. The Sessions Court relied upon the dying 
declaration and the evidence of three injured eyewitnesses, evidence of the 
wife of deceased and that of his elder brother, P. W. 5 a tenant of the building 
and the younger brother of deceased. 
· D 
In appeal to this Court, the Appellants contended that there are 
suspicious features in the case which throw doubt on the bonafides of Police 
Investigation and therefore it cannot be said that the prosecution· has proved 
the case beyond reasonable doubt, that the Police did not record the names of 
the accused at the earliest opportunity but they waited and deliberated as to 
E ·who should be inc~uded in the net of the accused,·that the FIR based on dying 
declaration does not disctpse the names of all the accused, that medical 
evidence does not support the prosecution case that in the absence of test 
identification parade, the evidence of eyewitness identifying the accused is 
inadmissible and totally value less, that on a holiday the witness (younger 
brother of the deceased had no occasion to stand the pan galla and he is a 
F chance witness; that if that was so then accused would have first assaulted 
him instead of assaulting others, that P.W.5. was a chance witness and that 
when the eyewitnesses do not know the accused alleged to have participated 
in the offence it

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.