LexSHANKER versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
814
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
SHANKER
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No.1785 of 2011)
APRIL 18, 2018
[N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Prosecution case that the victim
while attending a marriage, had altercation with some persons who
threatened him and went away – They subsequently came back with
more persons at night and assaulted the victim – Allegedly 11
persons were involved in the crime – Victim was taken to police
station and FIR was lodged, thereafter he died in the hospital –
Trial Court acquitted 6 accused persons, however, remaining 5
persons were convicted u/ss.148,302/149 – Appeal dismissed by
the High Court – Aggrieved, two accused persons, A-3 and A-5
filed appeal – Held: Prosecution has failed to prove the alleged
offence by adducing cogent and trustworthy evidence – High Court
has also not dealt with the matter in accordance with the settled
principles of law – Record reveals that the entire case of prosecution
was based on the evidence of two prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W-1
and P.W-5 – In instant case, the Courts below failed to take into
consideration the contradictions and distortions in the evidence of
P.W-1 & 5 – From the evidence of P.W-1, it transpires that the
participation and the role played by the appellants (A-3 and A-5) in
the crime was limited to giving blows with fists and legs to the
deceased, whereas, P.W-5 stated differently that one appellant
(A-5) had also attacked the victim holding a knife – There was no
corroboration among their statements, who were the prime witnesses,
as to the role played by the accused – In the FIR also, it was stated
that appellants had beaten the victim with hands and feet and no
weapon was ascribed to have been held by them – The post mortem
report and evidence of the doctor did not disclose any injuries
suffered by the victim resulted from the beatings received by fists,
cuffs and legs as such injuries were not visible – Prosecution had
made large number of assailants as accused to have attacked the
victim, but the evidences of witnesses was full of discrepancies and
they were not able to state as to how the appellants caused injuries
[2018] 6 S.C.R. 814
814
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
815
to the victim leading to his death – Discrepancies and
contradictions in the case on hand go to the root of the matter and
are material ones and based on such evidence, it is not possible to
convict the accused.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court unfortunately has not dealt with
the matter in accordance with the settled principles of law.
Before going to award conviction against an accused for the
offence under Section 302, IPC the Courts should be mindful of
the fact that there should be no room to suspect the evidence of
key prosecution witnesses based on whose evidence the
conviction is being awarded. As a general rule, while
appreciating evidence in a criminal case, the Court should bear
in mind that it is not the quantity, but the quality of evidence that
is material. It is the duty of the Court to consider the
trustworthiness of the witness and the evidence adduced on
record and to assess the same in a prudent manner whether the
same inspires confidence so as to accept and act upon, before
convicting an accused. [Para 17] [823-A-C]
2. In the case on hand, the Courts below failed to take into
consideration the contradictions and distortions in the evidence
of PWs 1 and 5. From the evidence of PW1 it clearly transpires
that the participation and the role played by the accused-appellants
in the crime was limited to giving blows with fists and legs to the
deceased, while other accused were assaulting the deceased with
knife and sword stick respectively. A statement of the prosecution
witness which is otherwise untrustworthy cannot be corroborated
by another piece of unreliable evidence of another prosecution
witness. In the FIR also, it was stated that, the appellants herein,
had beaten the victim with hands and feet and no weapon was
ascribed to have been held by them. Whereas, PW5 states
differently that the accused-appellant (A-5) had also attacked the
victim holding a knife. There was no corroboration among their
statements, who are the prime witnesses, as to the role played
by the accused herein. The postmortem report and the evidence
of PW7 (Dr.) does not disclose any injuries suffered by the victim
resulted from the beatings received by fists, cuffs anExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.