SHANKAR JAISWARA versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 480 · Decided: 14-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.H. KAPADIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
SHANKAR JAISWARA 
v. 
STA TE OF WEST BENGAL 
MAY 14, 2007 
(S.H. KAPADIA AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 86 and 302: 
Murder-Accused attacked deceased with a sharp edged weapons 
causing his death-F.I.R.-Charge sheet-Trial Court found accused guilty 
of committing offence 1t!s 302 !PC, convicted and sentenced him accordingly-
Affirmed by High Court-On appeal, Held, no doubt recovery of weapon 
seized itself would not be enough and sufficient to convict an accused with .. 
the crime unless it is established that the weapon has been used by him for 
D commission of the offence-But the weapon in the instant case was recovered 
at the instance of the accused-Besides, ocular evidence of PW I and 3 
consistently reveals that the accused was carrying a knife-Thus, sequence 
of events and material available on record clearly establishes that the weapon 
recovered was used for commission of murder of the deceased by the accusi!d-
Upon re-appreciation of the evidence it cannot be said that the accused was 
E devoid of his actual senses and was unable to comprehend his action while 
committing the crime-On the other hand the manner in which he inflicted 
grievous injuries to the deceased suggests that he was quite conscious of the 
consequences of his act-He had control over his senses as evident from the 
evidence as he tried to make good his escape after the incident in a calculated 
F manner-Intention to commit the crime is also evident from the attending 
circumstances and material on record-Hence, the prosecution proved the 
charges against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt-Evidence Act, 
1872-s. 27. 
Section 86: Drunkenness as defence in committing the crime of murder-
G Held: Not allowed in the facts and circumstances of the case. 
According to the prosecution, on the fateful day, accused-appellant 
shouting and hurling abuse and then started knocking the door of the house 
of PW-3 in the presence of PWl. Apprehending trouble, PWl requested the 
accused to leave the place. However, he became agitated and started abusing 
H 
480 
·~ 
SHANKARJAISWARA ''· STA TE OF WEST BENGAL 
481 
the younger brother of PW I, the deceased in filthy language, who was taking A 
his meal sitting in his rickshaw. When the deceased requested him to leave 
him alone, he became furious and started stabbing him with a sharp edged 
weapon. Deceased fell down, he was profusely bleeding. PW-I took him to a 
Hospital in the same rickshaw. Hospital authorities having regard to the 
grievous nature of injuries advised PW-I to take him to another Hospital. B 
The victim was accordingly taken to the Hospital, so referred, where he was 
pronounced dead. PW I informed the police about the incident. Accordingly, 
an FIR was registered by the Police under Section 302 IPC against the 
accused. The trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable 
under Section 302 IPC, convicted and sentenced him accordingly. The 
conviction and sentence was affirmed by the High Court. Hence, the present C 
appeal 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The medical evidence available on record and the ocular 
evidence of PW-I and PW-3 were absolutely in conformity with each other D 
which clearly establishes the prosecution case. [Para 16) (488-C) 
1.2. There is no doubt whatsoever about the recovery of weapon seized 
under seizure list but the recovery itself would not be enough and sufficient 
to connect the accused with the crime unless it is established that the said 
weapon has been used by the accused for commission of the offence. But it E 
cannot be denied that the recovery of the said article is a fact discovered at 
the instance of the accused. (Para 17) [488-D) 
1.3. The ocular evidence of PW-1 and PW-3, which is consistent, reveals 
that the appellant was carrying a knife. The sequence of events and the 
material available on record clear!~ establishes that the weapon of offence F 
has been used for the commission of the murder of the deceased by the 
appellant. The recovery made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by PW-
19, the investigating officer from the house of PW-9, a friend of the appellant 
is required to be taken into consideration. The process of recovery is based 
upon the statement of the appellant made to PW-19 is in accordance with G 
Section 27 of the Evidence Act. [Para 17) (488-E-F) 
Basdev v. The State of Pepsu, [1956) SCR 363 and Bablu @ Mubarik 
Hussain v. State of Rajas than, (2006) 14

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.