SOYEBBHAI YUSUFBHAI BHARANIA & ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 716 · Decided: 23-03-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 716 
SOYEBBHAI YUSUFBHAI BHARANIA & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
(Criminal Appeal No.1418 of2014) 
MARCH 23, 2017 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 147, 148 r/w s.149 - Murder - . 
Prosecution case was that accused persons were outraged over the 
fact that inspite of their protest, the younger brother of the victim-
deceased married a girl hailing from their community- On the fateful 
night, when the victim-deceased, his wife and children were sleeping, 
accused persons assaulted the deceased in sleeping condition with 
a large knife - Victim died on the spot - Whole incident was 
witnessed by his wife (PW-1) - Courts below found the accused 
persons guilty - Whether concurrent findings of fact call for 
interference in the facts and circumstances of the case - Held: fn 
the present case, there were concurrent findings as to the guilt of 
the accused persons by· both the courts below - Jn upholding the 
order of conviction of the trial court, the High Court had primarily 
relied upon the evidence of eye-witnesses, namely, PWJ who was 
found to be trustworthy - The weapon, being knife, was recovered 
and Panchnama was also proved - Common object was proved by 
prosecution - Further, in view of the evidence of PW5 and PW6, 
recovery of the weapon, being large knife with plastic handle, was 
corroborated - The offence of murder of the deceased was, 
therefore, proved beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused 
- No reason to interfere with the order of High Court. 
Dismissin2 the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the testimony of PWl who was the only eye 
witness in the present case and that of PW3 who was the first to 
know about the incident, as PWl had called her, no independent 
act or overt act was attributed to each accused, albeit it was stated 
that she had seen the clothes of the assaulter stained with her 
husband's blood during occurrence. Albeit the murder is prove,d 
but the ingredients of the unlawful assembly remained elusive, 
716 
SOYEBBHAI YUSUFBHAI BHARANIA & ORS. v. STATE OF 
GUJARAT 
as pre-requisite coudition for an unlawful assembly i.e., minimum 
five persons, has not been met. Nevertheless, the common object 
was proved by the prosecution. Moreover, when the appeal was 
preferred before the High Court, acquittal of the accused No.5 
was not rebutted and further finding of the High Court whereby 
accused No.4 has also been acquitted for reasonable doubts, 
ieaves a well-se.t doubt that prosecution has not proved its case 
beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court was vitiated by some 
·manifest illegality or the decision was perverse. [Paras 21-23) 
[725-C-F] 
2. For furtherance of the common intention namely to do 
away the deceased, appellants had entered into the house of the 
deceased and were seen by PWl. They then started beating the 
. deceased and after causing injuries on his neck with a sharp knife, 
thll')l ran away. The homicidal death_ was proved beyond all 
reasonable doubts. The fact that accused had been identified 
and recovery made from accused No.l has left no room for doubt 
that all the appellants were involved in the commission of the 
murder with com~on object to do away the deceased with sharp 
knife. [Paras 26, 27) [726-C-D, F] 
Ganga Kumar Srtvastava v. State of Bihar (2005) 6 
SCC 211; Mookkiah & Anr. v. State, represented by 
Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu (2013) 2 SCC 89 : 
[2013] 2 SCR 881, Pulukuru Kottaya & Ors. v. 
Emperor AIR (34) 1947 PC 67 ~ relied on. 
State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal & Ors. (2004) 5 SCC 
573 : (2004] 1 Suppl. SCR 480; Manmeet Singh alias 
Goldie v. State of Punjab (2015) 7 SCC 167 : [2015] 
3 SCR 773; Dana Yadav alias Dahu & Ors. v. State of 
Bihar (2002) 7 SCC 295 : (2002) 2 Suppl. SCR 363; 
Kanan & Ors. v. State of Kerala (1979) 3 SCC 319; 
Mulla & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 3 SCC 
508 : [2010] 2 SCR 633; Arjun Malik & Ors. v. State 
of Bihar -1994 Supp. (2) SCC 372 : (1994) 2 SCR 
265; Kuriya & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 10 
SCC 433 : (2012] 10 SCR 570 - referred to. 
717 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
718 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 2 S.C.R. 
Case Law Reference 
f200=!l 6 sec 211 
relied on 
Paras 
J2013J 2 SCR 881 
relied on 
Para 12 
[2004] 1 Suppl. SCR 480 
referred to · 
Para 12 
J2015J 3 SCR 773 
referred to 
Para 14 
(2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 363 
referred to 
Para 16 
(1979) 3 sec 319 
referred to 
Para 16 
J201 OJ 2 SCR 633

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