LexSHEIKH JUMAN & ANR. ETC. versus STATE OF BLHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] l S.C.R. 779 SHEIKH JUMAN & ANR. ETC. v. STATE OF BlHAR (Criminal Appeal Nos. 484-487 of2008) FEBRUARY 23, 2017 [PINAKI CHANDRA GROSE AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 302 read with s.149 - Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - ss. 3, 4 -Arms Act, 1959- s. 27 -Appellants and others armed with bomb explosives and guns attacked informant's nephews - Hurling of bomb at the victim by SS and SA resulting in his death - Informant's other nephew also attacked by SG resulting in his death - Injuries inflicted to PW 1 also - Thereafter, villagers assembled and appellants fled away firing shots in the air - Motive behind the incident was previous enmity - Trial court convicted acciised No.3(SS), 8 and 9(SG) for the offence punishable u/s. 302 and ss.3, 4 of the 1908 Act and sentenced accused Nos.3 and 9 to death sentence and accused No.8 to imprisonment for· life - Accused No. 7 convicted for offence punishable u/s. 3021149 and ss.3 & 4 of the 1908 Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years - Rest of the accused convicted for the offences punishable u!s. 3021149 ands. 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced. to three years RI - High Court upheld conviction. of the appellants and the sentence of life term, however. commuted the death sentence of SS and SG to life imprisonment - Interference with - Held: Not called for - Witnesses are reliable and have stood embedded in their version and remained unshaken - They vividly deposed about the genesis of occurrence, participation and involvement of the accused in the crime and injuries inflicted on the deceased, and on each of them. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: The witnesses, as the High Court has found and there is no reason to differ, are reliable and have stood em bedded in their version and remained unshaken. They vividly deposed about the genesis of occurrence, the participation and involvement of the accused persons in the crime and the injuries 779 A B c D E F G H 780 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] I S.C.R. inflicted on the deceased, and on each of them. The non- examination of the witnesses, who might have been there on the way to hospital or the hospital itself when deceased narrated the incident, would not make the prosecution case unacceptable. Similarly, evidence of any witness cannot be rejected merely on the ground that inte'rested witnesses admittedly had enmity witJi the persons implicated in the case. The purpose of recoding .of the evidence, in any case, shall always be to unearth the truth of· the case. The conviction can even be based on the testimon(. oCa sole .eye-witness, if the same inspires confidence. More<Wer, prosecution case was proved by the testimony of the eye-witness since. corro.borated by the other witnesses of the occurrence. Thus, thejudgment passed by the High Court does not warrant interference. [Paras 21, 23 and 24] [787-D-E; 788-C.-D] Ganga Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar (2005) 6 SCC 211; Habeeb Mohammad v. State of Hyderabad [1954] SCR 475; Shambhu Nath Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1960 SC 725; Ram Dular Rai & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra [1961] SCR 2773; State of Bihar v. Sanjeet Rai and Anr.. 2006 (4) PLJR 479; State of Bihar V. Prajeet Kumar Singh 2006 (2) PLJR 656; K. M Ravi and Ors. v. Siate of Karnataka (2009) 16 SCC 337; Jodhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2015) 11 SCC 52 : [20151 4 SCR 789; Hem Raj and Ors. v. State of ' Haryana (2005) 10 SCC 614 : [2005] 2 SCR 1152; Bhim Rao and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 3 sec 37 - referred to. Case Law Reference (2005) 6 sec 211 referred to Para9 [1954] SCR 475 referred to Para 11 AIR 1960 SC 725 referred to Para 12 L1'?61J ~~R ~ 773 . referred .to Para 12 2006 (4) PLJR 479. · referred to Para 12 ~006 (2) PLlR 6S6 referred to Para 12 c2009) 16 sec 337 referred to Para 16 SHEIKH JUMAN & ANR. ETC. v. STATE'OF BIHAR 781 . [2015) 4 SCR 789 [2005] 2 SCR 1152 (2003) 3 sec 37 referred to referred to referred to Para 17 Para 17 Para 18 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal A Nos. 484-487 of2008. B· From the Judgment and Order dated 05. I 0.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal Nos. 122, 92, 98 and 123 of 2003. Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv., C. George Thomas; Rohan Sha.rma, Ms. Qurratulain, Ms. Tanya Shree, Mohd. Shahid Hussain (For Ejaz C Maqbool) Advs. for the Appellants. Gopal Singh, Ravi Bh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.