LexSANJEEV KUMAR GUPTA versus STATE OF U.P. (NOW STATE OF UTIARAKHAND)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2015] 5 S.C.R. 122 SANJEl;V KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF U.P. (NOW STATE OF UTIARAKHAND) (Criminal Appeal No.507of2013 etc.) MAYOS,2015 [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 3021149 and s. 148 - Murder -Prosecution case that accused persons armed with weapons asked the victim and PW 1 to withdraw their names from the college election - On refusal, accused persons assaulted D them and the victim succumbed to his injuries the next day - PW 1 suffered injuries and lodged a complaint -Accused persons convicted u/s. 3021149 and s. 148 and sentenced accordingly by the courts below - On appeal, held: Medical evidence corroborated by testimonies of the prosecution E witnesses proved that the deceased died a homicidal death - No inconsistency in the statements of the prosecution witnesses as regards the presence of the accused persons and the individual role played by them - Testimonies fully reliable and no improvement made - Discrepancy with F regard to the place of occurrence; the testimony of the prosecution witnesses as also certain flaws in the investigation not fatal to the prosecution case - Even if it is assumed that there was no common object of killing, but only G of stopping the deceased and others from contesting the elections, the common intention to kill might have arisen on the spur of the moment - Actions of the accused and the injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased substantiate the same - Thus, order passed by the courts below upheld. H Dismissing the appeals, the Court 122 SANJEEV KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF U. P. (NOW 123 STATE OF UTIARAKHAND) HELD: 1.1 The appellants raised the defense that A there was an improvement by the prosecution witnesses with respect to the place of occurrence of the incident. However, from a perusal of the site map it became clear that the incident originally took place near the cycle stand and on receiving the injuries AC (deceased) ran away B from the place and fell down after 10-20 steps. Out of the seven accused, he was chased by four accused and injuries were caused to him by them near building, which was hardly 10-20 steps from the place where he fell down C after getting trapped with the wire. The veracity of the said distance came forth in the cross-examination of the witnesses. It is believed that a person may presume them to be at one place or two separate places. Therefore, the discrepancy with respect to the place of occurrence has o no bearing on the prosecution case. [Para 26] (136-F-H; 137-A-B] 1.2 ·it is believed that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are consistent, on the whole, and E minor discrepancies are such that those will not weaken the prosecution case. The prosecution witnesses established the presence and participation of all the accused in the offence. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses have been fully corroborated by F the medical reports of the. doctors who examined the deceased and the injured witness. The statement of P.W.1 gets corroborated by the injury report prepared by the doctor-P.W.8 of the Hospital who recorded the injuries on the person of P.W.1 and P.W.3 supported the G version given by P.W.1. He named all the seven accused with respect to their presence at the cycle stand. He also supported P.W.1 with respect to their individual roles played in assaulting the deceased and P.W.1. With H 124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R. A respect to the question of presence of the seven accused persons and the individual role played by them, there is no inconsistency in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are fully reliable and there has been no B improvement made. [Para 27,28) [137-C-F; 138-H;139-A] 1.3 The inconsistency in the statement given by P.W.1 in the F.1.R and the statement given in the court, is not fatal to the prosecution case. The possibility of post C incident trauma and shock which might have been caused to the injured eye witness cannot be ruled out. In such a situation one cannot expect the witness to depose about every detail with accuracy. The testimony D of an injured eye witness has to be given much credence. [Para 28) [137-G-H; 138-A] 1.4 The investigation suffers from certain flaws such as non-recovery of the weapon used by the accused appellants and recovery of the blood stained E shirt after six days of the dat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.