LexSHYAM versus STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S. BERCHA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SHYAM +- v. STA TE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S. BERCHA FEBRUARY 15, 2007 B [DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] Penal Code-S.302 rlw s.34-Murder~Caused by inflicting knife __,... injuries-Appeal against conviction by Courts below-Held: Deceased's c widow, the eye-witness, gave vivid description about participation of accused right from the stage of FIR-Even after searching cross-examination, nothing to discredit her statement-Courts below justified in placing reliance upon her evidence-Plausible reason given for delay in lodging FIR, hence d"eiay -· condoned-,No variance between medical evidence and ocular evidence as alleged-Conviction sustained. D Criminal Trial: - Witness-Related or interested witness-Appreciation of evidence- -\. Duty of Court-Held: No proposition in law that relatives be treated as untrutliful witnesses-But at the same time if relatives or interested witnesses E are examined, Court has to analyse the evidence with deeper scrutiny. FIR-Delay in lodging-Effect of-Discussed. Evidence: F Medical evidence and ocular evidence-Variance between-Effect of- t-- Held: Oral evidence has to get primacy-Medical evidence is basically opinionative-'Medical evidence can be used to repel the testimony of eye- witnesses only if it is conclusive as to rule out even the possibility of the eye- witness's version being true. G According to the prosecution, PWI heard alarm raised by her husband and thereafter found Appellant and four other accused grappling with him. \ ... Appellant allegedly went to his house and brought a knife whereafter he and a co-accused 'P' stabbed the husband of PWI with several blows of knife resulting in his death. Trial Court convicted Appellant and 'P' under Section H -: 706 --:)., SHYAMv_ STATEOFM.P. THROUGH P.S. BERCHA 707 302 r/w 34 IPC. The other three accused were acquitted. On appeal, High A Court acquitted the said 'P', but upheld the conviction of Appellant, though under S.304 Part-II IPC. Hence the present appeal challenging the conviction of Appellant. Dismissing the appeal, the Court B HELD: I. In the case of appellant, PW1, the eye witness has right from the stage of the First Information Report, given a vivid description about the participation from the beginning, the manner in which he went to his house 1" and brought the knife and he assaulted and caused injuries to the deceased. The evidence of Dr. H.L. Arya (PW-3) and his autopsy report clearly recorded c four external injuries on the body of the deceased. The testimony of this witness has been subjected to searching cross-examination, but nothing has been brought on record to discredit the statement of PW-1. What has been suggested is that the deceased was drunken and that there was grappling between the two in which the deceased sustained injuries. As seen from the injuries recorded in post mortem report, first injury has been sustained in D the lumbar region, second on the shoulder, third in the inguinal region and the fourth on the left forearm. It appears incredible that in grappling, a person ....... would sustain injuries on places where it would be difficult for his hand to !' reach. It is also beyond comprehension that in such grappling with a knife in the hand of the deceased, the other party, namely the accused, would escape E unscathed. Thus the prosecution has fully succeeded in showing that it was on account of the injuries inflicted by Appellant that the death occurred. [Para 8) [711-B, C, D, El 2.1. There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to be shown when a plea of F partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield the actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused. No evidence has been led in this regard. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, the witnesses have clearly stated that after seeing the deceased in an injured condition immediate effort was to get him hospitalized and get him treated. There cannot be any generalization that whenever there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the G prosecution case becomes suspect. Whether delay is so long as to throw a cloud of suspicion on the seeds of the prosecution case, would depend upon j the facts of each case. Even a long delay can be condoned if the witnesses have no motive of implicating the accused and have given a plausible reason as to why the report was lodged b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.