LexRAMESH KRISHNA MADHUSUDAN NAYAR versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 1 S.C.R.-150 A RAMESH KRISHNA MADHUSUDAN NAYAR ~I v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Crl. A. No. 12 of 2008) B JANUARY 7, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss. 300, exception 4, 304 (Part /) and 302 - Murder or Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder c - Quarrel between parties over a trivial issue - Fatal blows by wooden Jog on head of deceased - Convicti.on u/s. 302 by courts below on basis of sole testimony of eye witness -On appeal held: Conviction can be based on testimony.of single witness if he is wholly reliable - In facts and circumstances of D the case, conviction altered to s. 304 (Part I) - Custodia/ sentence altered to ten years - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 134. s.300, Exception 4 - Applicability of - Explained. ~ s. 300, Exceptions 1 and 4-Distinction between- E Explained. Evidence Act, 1872: s. 134 - Number of witnesses - No particular number of witnesses is required to establish the case - Conviction can be based on evidence of sole eye witness if he is wholly reliable - Corroboration is required when he is F only partially reliable. ~ .. Words and phrases: 'Fight', 'sudden fight' and 'undue advantage'-Meaning of-In the context of Exception 4 to s.300, /PC. G Altercations took place between the appellant and the deceased over a minor issue dL•ring mid night. In the morning, complainant saw the appellant and the deceased quarrelling and appellant inflicting two blows by wooden iog on the head of deceased. The deceased became unconscious and was taken to the hospital. FIR was H 150 RAMESH KRISHNA MADHUS~DAN NAYAR v. 151 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ~ . . lodged. Trial Court relying on the_ evidence of the A complainant-PW 5 convicted the appellant under section 302 IPC and imposed life imprisonment. Hence the present appeal. Appellant-accused contended that the conviction B could not be recorded solely on the testimony of one alleged eye-witness PW-5; that on facts, s. 302 IPC was '<' not applicable; and that in course of a sudden quarrel the incident happened, as such exception 4 to s. 300 IPC was applicable. c Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872 clearly states that no particular number of witnesses is required to establish the case. Conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness if he is wholly reliable. D Corroboration may be necessary when he is only partially ~ reliable. If the evidence is unblemished and beyond all possible criticism and the court is satisfied that the witness was speaking the truth then on his evidence alone conviction can be maintained. [Para 7] [154-B-C] E 1.2 For bringing in operation of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, it has to be established that the act was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without the ~ offender having taken undue advantage and not having F acted in a cruel or unusual manner. [Para 8] [154-D] Sridhar Bhuyan v. State of Orissa JT 2004 (6) SC 299; Prakash Chand v. State of H. P JT 2004 (6) SC 302; Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh JT 2004 (8) SC 534; G Sandhya Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra 2006 (4) SCC 653; l Lachman Singh v. State of Haryana 2006 (10) SCC 524 - relied on. 1.3 Considering the factual background the inevitable conclusion is that the appropriate conviction would be H 152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R. A under Section 304 Part I, IPC and not Section 302 IPC. •• Custodial sentence of 10 years would meet the ends of justice. [Para 11) [156-A-B] CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal B No. 12 of 2008. From the Judgment and final Order dated 8.9.2004 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Crl.A. No.10/2001] c Birnal Roy Jad and Sunita Pandit for the Appellant. R.K. Adsure for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. D 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, dismissing the appeal of the appellant who faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and was sentenced to imprisonment for life by E learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The complainant Sajay Vithal was serving as a Waiter in Sanjog Hotel f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.