RATTIRAM & ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF M.P. THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2013] 2 S.C.R. 1003 · Decided: 18-04-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 2 S.C.R. 1003 
RATTIRAM & ORS. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
ETC. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 223 of 2008 etc.) 
APRIL 18, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860 
s.3021149 - Victim stated to have been assaulted by a 
number of accused resulting in his death - Conviction - Held: 
The evidence establishes that five of the accused assaulted 
the deceased - One of them died before filing of the appeals 
A 
B 
c 
-
Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment of the 
0 
remaining four is upheld - As far other accused persons are 
concerned, there are contradictory statements leading to a 
reasonable doubt with regard to their presence at the place 
of occurrence and assaulting the deceased -
They are 
accordingly acquitted - Evidence - Contradictory statements E 
of witnesses. 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
s. 157 - Sending of special report to Magistrate - Held: 
When there is delayed despatch of FIR, it is necessary on the 
F 
part of prosecution to give an explanation for delay -
However, if court is convinced as to truthfulness of prosecution 
version and trustworthiness of its witnesses, delay in despatch 
of FIR may not be regarded as detrimental to prosecution 
case- In the case at hand, the evidence cannot be thrown 
overboard as the version of witnesses deserves credence. 
G 
The appellants alongwith three others were 
prosecuted for causing the death of one 'D'. The case of 
the prosecution was that on 29.9.1995 at about 11 p.m. 
1003 
H 
1004 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013f 2 S.C.R. 
A when PWs.5,6,7 and 12 alongwith 'D' were at a shop to 
purchase medicine for PW.5, all the accused surrounded 
'D', attacked him and caused his death. The trial court 
convicted accused 'M' u/ss.148 and 302 IPC and the 
remaining accused u/ss.147 and 302 read with s.149 IPC, 
B and sentenced all of them to imprisonment for life. On 
appeal, the High Court acquitted accused 'G' and upheld 
the conviction and sentence of the other accused. 
Accused 'Chh' had died during pendency of appeal 
before High Court and appellant 'B' died after the instant 
c appeals were filed. The appeals were referred to a three-
Judge Bench which answered the reference*. 
It was contended for the appellants that the finding 
of the trial court as accepted by the High court that all the 
accused had assaulted the deceased was founded 
D absolutely on non-appreciation of the evidence; and that 
non-compliance of s.157 Cr.P .C. vitiated the trial. 
Allowing the appeals in part, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court in one line has stated that 
E considering the overall evidence on record it could be 
said that barring accused 'G' all the other accused 
persons were present and they jointly assaulted the 
deceased. The concurrence of the High Court is bereft 
of any scrutiny of evidence. On a studied evaluation of 
F the evidence on record, it is evident that accused 'Chh' 
exhorted and he along with accused 'Oh', 'M', 'B' and 'GD' 
assaulted the deceased. There is ample evidence on 
record to safely conclude that they formed an unlawful 
assembly and there was common object to assault the 
G 
H 
• 
It has been held in Rattiram & Ors. vs. State of M.P. Through Inspector of 
Police etc. 2012 (3) SCR 496 = 2012(4) SCC 516 that Mo/y and Another v. 
State of Kera/a 2004 (3) SCR = AIR 2004 SC 1890 and Vidyadharan v. 
State of Kera/a 2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 524 = (2004) 1 SCC 215 did not noted 
the decision in State of M.P. v. Bhooraji & Ors. 2001 (2) Suppl. SCR 128 = 
2001 AIR 3372, and as such, Moly and Vidyadharan are per incurium and 
the view therein regarding retrial is overruled. 
RATIIRAM & ORS. ETC. v. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH 1005 
INSPECTOR OF POLICE ETC. 
eventually, succumbed to the injuries inflicted in the 
A 
assault. There is clear cut evidence of their involvement 
and PW-5 and PW-12 have categorically spoken about 
their overt acts. Therefore conviction and sentence of 
appellants 'Oh', 'M', 'B' and 'GD' is affirmed. [para 11, 19 
and 22] [1012-G-H, 1013-A-B; 1016-D-E; 1018-D] 
B 
1.2. As far as other accused are concerned, there are 
material contradictions about their presence at the place 
of occurrence and assaulting the deceased. From t~e 
appa'rent contradictions in the depositions of PW-5 and 
C 
PW-12, it seems that they have implicated the other 
accused in the crime. Thus, their involvement in any overt 
act is not proven by the prosecution. Therefore, the view 
of the trial court which
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.