STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. versus MANOJ KUMAR AND ANR.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 521 · Decided: 02-11-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N.P. SINGH

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. 
v. 
MAN()J KUMAR AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 2, 1993 
(K.RAMASWAMY AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.) 
I11dia11 Penal Code 1860 : Section 302 and 304. Murder-Repeated 
attacks to knock down the deceased by car-Death caused by knocking down-
Nature of offence-Held punishable under section 302 and not under 304. · 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : Conviction based on testimony of the sole 
eye witness-Legality of. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Section 154-FIR-Delay in lodg-
in~When satisfactorily explained-Prosecution case cannot be rejected. 
Respondent 'M' was tried for an offence under section 302 of the 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Indian Penal Code. 1be prosecution case was that on June 22, 1988 two 
brothers, R and C left for Rohtak, from the residence of their father at 
New Delhi on a Motor-cycle. On their way they stopped ·at a shop at 
Bahadurgarh for refreshment where they parked their motors cycle in 
front of the car of the accused, M. When they came back to remove their E 
motorcycle there was an altercation between the parties and the accused 
threatened to kill both the brothers. When they left for Rohtak, the accused 
followed them and repeated attempts to crush them on the road. Out of 
fear the two ~rothers stopped ~eir motorcycle on the side of the road, in 
front of a tractor-trolley to save themselves. In the meanwhile C came down 
from the motor cycle and wanted to go behind the tractor-trolley to take 
shelter but the accused hit C by the right side of his car with force. Because 
F 
of the impact, C was thrown from the road inside, the trolley which was 
carrying agricultural implements and consequently C got some incised 
wounds. Thereafter, the car proceeded in great speed grazing with the 
tractor-trolley. R got a Matador stopped on the way and asked the driver G 
to take his brother to hospital and he followed the Matador on Motorcycle. 
But on reaching the hospital, C was declared dead. The informant, father 
of the victim, stated in his evidence that he got the information at about 
2.00 AM and on reaching Rohtak at about 4.00 AM in the morning, he 
found that R was virtually unconscious because of the shock. Only at about H 
521 
522 
SUPRJ?ME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 9.00 A.M. he got the full details from him and then lodged the first 
informatio.n report at about 11.lS A.M. On June 23, 1988 mentioning all. 
the facts relating to the occurrence on the basis of the Information given 
to him by R. 
The glass pieces as well plastic strips of the car piCked up from the 
B scene of occurrence were sent for examination and the expert opinion 
confirm'ed that broken pieces of the glass and J!lastic strips were of the car 
of the accused. On June 25, the accused was arrested. The car was also 
seized from his premises and the right side of the car was found to have 
been badly damaged. 
c 
Relying on the testimony of the sole eye-witness, R, the Trial Court 
convicted ~ and sentenced hiin to imprisonment for life. However, on . 
appeal, the High Court acquitted the accused by rejecting the testimony of 
R inasmuch as it doubted his presence with the victim on the ground that 
he did not reach the hospital along with the victim. The High Court also 
D drew adverse inference because of delay in lodging the FIR inasmuch as R 
did not lodge the FIR during the night itself. 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the State that 
the circumstantial evidence fully supported the prosecution case and the. 
E High Court erred in rejecting the evidence of R whose presence at the time 
of the occurrence was never questioned by the accused during trial. 
-
.F 
On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that even on the 
prosecution case the accused could at the utmost be prosecuted for an 
offence under section 304 and not under section 302 IPC. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the .order of the High Court, 
this Court, 
HELD : 1. A conviction can be based and the verdict of the court can 
rest even on the testimony of the sole witness, If the court is fully satlsfted 
G that such witness ls a truthful witness and his presence at the Ume of 
occurence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. [529·C·D] 
1.1 From a bare reading of the evidence of R, It appears that he has 
deposed in a very straight forward manner, giving every detail of the 
Incident and as to how the accused-respondent made repeated attempts to 
H crush them on the road, because of the altercaUon. There ls n0 sco

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