LexRAMESH S/O LAXMAN GAVLI versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
/ RAMESH S/O LAXMAN GA VLI v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 16, 1999 [G.B. PATTANAIK AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860-Ss. 302134-Murder-Testimony of eye witnesses- Duly corroborated by other witnesses-Nothing brought in cross examination to discredit the eye witnesses-Held; conviction and sentence justified Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-S.161_.:._Witnesses-Delay in examining the witnesses-Effect of-Held; ipso facto ~cannot be a ground to discredit their testimony when nothing tangible was brought in cross examination to impeach their testimony. Criminal Trial : Benefit of doubt-Grant of-Murder-Testimony of eye witnesses- Discrepancy between eye witnesses regarding which accused pierced 'Gupti' on the chest of deceased-Held, sufficient to grant benefit of doubt-Penal Code 1860, S.302134. Appellant alongwith 'D' and 'R' was prosecuted for offences under S. 302/34 of IPC. The prosecution case was that accused and deceased belonged to two rival fractions of 'Gawli' community. On the fateful day, while A B c D E 'K' leader of one of the fraction was proceeding to temple for offering puja alongwith PWl, accused person armed with weapons assaulted him. 'K' F succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. Trial court, relying upon the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4, duly corroborated by PW 12, Doctor, convicted and sentenced the accused persons to imprisonment for life. On appeal, High Court while confirming the conviction and sentence of appellant and accused 'D' set aside the conviction and sentence of accused 'R' by giving benefit of G doubt. Hence the present appeals. On behalf of appellant it was contended that the evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be relied on as there was delay in examining them; the FIR dated 1.10.85 was a fabricated document and no FIR was lodged till 3.10.85. 603 H 604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The reliable evidence of PW 1, who was accompanying the deceased right from the beginning was fully corroborated by evidences of - PWs 2 and 4. Nothing substantial was brought on record in the cross examinations of the said witnesses to disbelieve them. Thus there is no B ~nfirmity in the judgment of the High Court convicting the appellant under S.302 IPC requiring interference by this Court. 1607-G; 608-BI c 2. Delay in examining the ~vitnesses, ipso facto cannot be a ground to discard their testimony, when nothing tangible was brought in the cross examination to impeach their testimony. (607-Fl 3. It is wholly misconceived to state that the FIR lodged on 1. 10.85 is a fabricated document and no FIR had been given till 3. 10.85. PW 1 is himself the informant and has ltategorically stated that he had given the report to the police on 1.10.85 itself and there is no reason to discard his statement. The letter dated 3.10.85 written to Superintendent of Police D indicates that several persons had already been arrested, persons can be arrested only after lodging of FIR and not before that. Further the explanation given bY the ifivestigating officer, that due to public holiday on 2.10.85 the documents were sent on 3.10.85 having been accepted by the courts below, there is no need to take a separate view in the matter. (606-G; A-BJ E 4. High Court was justified in acquitting accused 'R' by giving him benefit of doubt. T·here is inconsistency between the eye witnesses regarding the role ascribed by the prosecution to accust:_d 'R'. While according to PWs 1 and 4, 'R' pierced the 'Gupti' on the chest of the deceased but according to PW 2 it was 'D' who pierced the 'Gupti'. This discrepancy as to the alleged F role played by the accused 'R' was sufficient to give him benefit of doubt. (608-C-D) CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 587 of 1996 Etc. G From the Judgment and Order dated 24.9.94 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Crl. A. No. 60of1987. B.R. Naik and Vijay K. Jain for the Appellant. Vivek Gambhir for the Respondent. H K.N. Shukla, (Mrs. Sushila Shukla) for Uma Nath Singh for the State of RAMESHS/OLAXMANGAVLI v. STATEOFM.P._[PATTANAIK,J.] 605 Madhya Pradesh. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATTANAIK J. These two appeals, one by the convict, Ramesh and the other by the State are directed against one and the same judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and were, therefore, heard together and are B disposed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.