RAMESHBHAI MOHANBHAI KOLI & ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2010] 14 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 20-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1 
RAMESHBHAI MOHANBHAI KOLi & ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1146 of 2008 et::.) 
OCTOBER 20, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302134 - Murder - Conviction 
based on circumstantial evidence - Prosecution of 8 accused 
B 
- Allegation that 3 of the accused conspiring to eliminate the C 
deceased and engaging the 4 appellant-accused through 
another accused - Recovery of blood-stained articles and 
recovery of blood-stained weapons of offence at the instance 
of the accused - Serological report stating that blood-stains 
on the articles belonged to the blood-group of the deceased o 
- Panchnama supported by evidence of 10 - Eye-witnesses 
and Panch witnesses turning hostile - Conviction of the 7 
accused except the· accused who was responsible for 
engaging the 4 appellant-accused - High Court convicting the 
appellant-accused and acquitting the 3 accused who E 
conspired - On appeal, held: Conviction justified - The case 
.against the appellants-accused established on the basis of 
the chain of circumstances - The witnesses' turning hostile 
does not create a dent in the case of the prosecution -
Circumstantial evidence. 
Evidence: 
Circumstantial evidenct;J - Held: A false plea taken.by an 
accused in a case of circumstantial evidence, is an additional 
F 
link in the chain of circumstances. 
G 
Witness: 
Hostile witness - Evidentiary value of - Held: The 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A evidence of prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto 
merely because the witness turned hostile. 
Police witness - Evidentiary value of - Held: Prima facie 
public servants must be presumed to act honestly and 
8 
conscientiously - Their evidence cannot be discarded merely 
on the ground that being public servants they are interested' 
in the success of their case. 
The appellants (accused Nos. 1 to 4) alongwith co-
accused (accused Nos. 5 to 8) were prosecuted for 
C causing death of one 'PR', who was the chairman of a 
Bank. The prosecution case was that accused Nos. 5 to 
7 had conspired to eliminate the said 'PR' and in 
furtherance of that conspiracy engaged the services of 
appellants-accused Nos. 1 to 4. According to the 
D prosecution, when 'PR' came out of the Bank with PW-
106 (an eye-witness), appellant-accused No. 1 
approached him with an application form and asked him 
about the- loan facility and the manner in which the form 
was to be filled. Immediately thereafter at his exhortation, 
E other appellants (accused Nos. 2 to 4) attacked 'PR' with 
knives and appellant-accused No. 1 also joined them. 
After the attack, two of the accused ran away on a motor-
cycle. In addition to PW. 106, the incident was also 
witnessed by 8 other eye-witnesses. The application form 
F was recovered from the scene of occurrence. The 
weapons of offence and clothes of the accused were 
recovered at their instance. In the serological report, 
blood stains of group '0' were found on the application 
form, the weapons of offence, the clothes of the accused 
G and the seat of the motorcycle on which the accused had 
run away. The blood group of the deceased also 
belonged to group '0'. The trial court convicted accused 
Nos. 1 to 4 of the offences punishable u/ss. 302/34 IPC 
and u/s. 135 of Bombay Police Act. Accused Nos. 5 to 7 
were convicted of the offences punishable u/s. 302 r/w 
H 
RAMESHBHAI MOHANBHAI KOLi & ORS. v. STATE 
3 
OF GUJARAT 
s. 120-B IPC. Accused No. 8 was acquitted of the offence 
A 
punishable u/s. 312 IPC. The High Court confirmed the 
conviction of appellants-accused Nos. 1 to 4. Accused 
Nos. 5 to 7 were acquitted. 
I 
In the instant appeals, the questions for B 
consideration were: whether the conviction on the basis 
of circumstantial evidence was correct; and whether the 
conviction was justified since all the eye-witnesses did 
not support the case of the prosecution as against 
accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1. The materials produced by the prosecution 
are relevant, acceptable and rightly connected the 
circumstances with the appellants. The prosecution has 0 
established its case insofar as the appellants are 
concerned. They have been rightly convicted and 
sentenced by the trial court and their conviction and 
sentence has been rightly affirmed by the High Court. 
[Paras 26 and 28] [20-G-H; 21-D] 
E 
~ 
2.1 In the instant case, all the eye-witnesses examin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.