SHAMSUDDIN AND ORS. versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 1059 · Decided: 18-12-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SHAMSUDDIN AND ORS. 
A 
V. 
STATE OF M.P. 
DECEMBER 18, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] · 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34-Com-
munal disharmony leading to death of one and injuries to other by accused 
persons-Acquittal by Trial Court-Conviction by High Court-Correct-
nes~ of -Held : Evidence of the injured as also the FIR does not suffer C 
from any infirmity-Hence, order of High Court calls for no interference. 
On account of communal disharmony appellant-accused inflicted 
injuries to Rand PW-1, as a result of which 'R' lost his life and PW-
1 was injured severely. PW-2 and PW-8 witnessed the incident. PW- D 
2 informed brother of PW-1, who thereafter lodged an FIR. Appel.ant-
accused were charged under Section 302 and 307 read with Section 34 
IPC. Trial Court acquitted the appellant-accused as the prosecution 
case was not supported by the evidence. High Court set aside the 
acquittal but held that the appellants were guilty for offence punishable 
under Section 324 and not Section 302 IPC. Hence .the present appeal. E 
Appellant-accused contended that the trial Court had analysed 
the evidence and found infirmities which the High Court failed to 
notice and on surmises held the accused persons guilty; that the 
evidence of PW-1 does not inspire confidence, he does not speak about F 
presence of PW-8 and his name was not also mentioned in the FIR; 
and that the FIR was ante-timed and was fabricated. 
Respondent-State contended that the FIR was not lodged by a 
person who was an eyewitness, that though PW-I was extensively 
questioned regarding assault on him, there was not even any suggestion G 
regarding the assaults on the deceased; that the High Court carefully 
analysed the evidence of PW-1 and found to be credible; and that the 
High Court has analysed as to how the pleas that the FIR was not 
lodged at the time claimed or it was fab.ricated is not established by 
evidence on record. 
H 
1059 
• 
1060 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
-. A 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The evidence of PW-1 does not suffer from any infirmity. 
The core of the evidence has to be seen and not any borderline's aspect. 
Minor variations which do not have any effect on the credibility of the 
B evidence cannot be the basis to discard intrinsic value of the evidence. 
Absence of PW-S's name in the FIR is really of no consequence as the 
FIR was lodged by the brother of PW-1 who was not an eyewitness. 
High Court's finding that the FIR was not fabricated does not suffer 
from any infirmity to take any contrary view. Furthermore, there was 
no cross-examination of PW-1 so far as the assaults on the deceased 
C are concerned. High Court seems to have proceeded on the premise 
that the fatal injury was not clearly established to have been inflicted 
by any particular accused, thus the case is not covered under Section 
302 IPC with application of Section 34. This does not appear to be a 
correct or rational and reasonable approach. In any event, the State 
D has not preferred any appeal, and, therefore, no view is expressed. 
However, there is no infirmity in the judgment of High Court which 
warrants any interference. [1062-G-H; 1063-A-CJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
E 827 of 1997. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.1.97 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in Cr!. A. No. 299 of 1992. 
Anis Ahmed Khan, for the Appellants. 
Siddharth Dave and Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.: Communal disturbances have taken toll of 
G many lives at different times. This is a sad reflection on our' society, though 
the Constitutibn of India, 1950 (in short 'the Constitution') underlines in 
no unce11ain terms that ours· is a secular country, where caste, creed and 
religion cannot and do not have any differentiating base. One Rajunath 
(hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') lost his life on account of 
H communal disharmony and another Narish Chandra (PW~ I) was seriously 
SHAMSUDDIN v. STATE OF M.P. [PASAYAT, J.] 
1061 
injured. Accused persons were stated to be the authors of the crime, who A 
committed offences punishable under Section 302 and 307 read with 
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC'). 
Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows: 
On 21.10.90 at about 2.30 p.m. there was rising of tension on account 
of communal feelings in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.