STATE OF HARYANA versus BHAGIRATH AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 3 S.C.R. 529 · Decided: 12-05-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~· 
STATE OF HARYANA 
A 
v. 
BHAGIRA TH AND ORS. 
MAY 12, 1999 
[K.T. THOMAS AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] 
B 
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302134-Murder-Common 
Intention-Proof of-Eye witnesses reliable-Motive-Land dispute-Father 
of deceased holding legs of deceased when his nephew cut his throat-All c 
three ran away together-Held, father of deceased shared common intention 
with other two assailants-All three liable to be convicted u/s 302134 /PC. 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 45-Medical evidence-Evidentiary 
value-Held, such opinion must be tested by ·Court-If opinion given by 
doctor is not consistent with probability-Court has no liability to go by D 
that opinion-However, due weight must be given to medical opinion. 
Criminal Law-Benefit of doubt-Principle of-Considerations for 
Court-Held, doctrine of benefit of doubt can be invoked when there is 
reasonable doubt regarding guilt of accused-Expression reasonable doubt,-
Definition and concept-Discussed 
E 
Respondent, father of the deceased and his two nephews were convicted 
by the Sessions court u/s 302 r/w S. 34 Indian Penal Co(le. In appeal, the 
High Court acquitted father of the deceased but confirmed the conviction and 
sentence of other two accused. This appeal by special leave had been filed 
against the acquittal of the respondent. 
F 
Proser'ltion case was that the deceased, congenitally blind, aged 33 
years old was living with his mother separately as the respondent accused 
and his wife became estranged with each other long back; that there was land 
dispute between deceased and his father was living with his two nephews G 
since the separation; that one day when deceased was in a nearby house, his 
____j-
father along with his two nephews reached there, father held a grip on the 
legs of his son while two other accused whacked on his neck with Kulhari. 
The incident was witnessed by PW 4, an old woman of that house and her 
daughter-in-law. They had come there on hearing the sounds of death pangs 
of the victim. Sessions Court placing complete reliance on the evidence of H 
529 
•
530 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 3 S.C.R. 
A these eye witnesses held the three accused guilty u/s 302/34 IPC and 
.....
convicted and sentenced them for imprisonment for life. In appeal, the High 
Court concurred with the Sessions Court regarding the reliability or evidence 
of the two eye witnesses and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed ~ 
on the two accused Hand K but acquitted father of the deceased, giving him 
B 
benefit of doubt, holding that he had not caused any injury. 
In the State Appeal, the respondent argued that the injuries found in 
the post mortem examination were not consistent with the testimony of the 
eye witnesses as PWl stated that one incised wound was possibly by a single 
blow by one weapon with some backward support and it was not the result 
c 
of two blows with two weapons, as alleged by the prosecution. 
Allowing the State appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The opinion given by a medical witness need not be the last 
word on the subject. Such opinion shall be tested by the court If the opinion 
is bereft of logic or objectivity, court is not obliged.to go by that opinion. 
D After all opinion is what is formed in the mind of a person regarding a fact 
situation. If one doctor forms one opinion and another doctor forms a different 
opinion on the same facts it is open to the judge to adopt the view which is 
more objective or probable. Similarly if the opinion given by one doctor is 
not consistent with probability the court has no liability to go by that opinion 
E 
merely because it is said by the d~ctor. Of course, due weight must be given 
to opinions given by persons who are experts in the particular subject. 
[536-C-D) 
1.2. Looking at the width of the wound on the neck (4.5 cm) and its 
length (14 ems) a doctor should not have ruled out the possibility of two 
F successive strikes with a sharp weapon falling at the same situs resulting 
.. 
in such a wide incised wound. If the doctor does not agree to the possibility 
-.. 
of causing such a wound the doctor should have put forth cogent reasons in 
support of such opinion. But PW7 did not give any such reason for the Court 
answer given by him that such an injury could not have been caused by two 
strikes with the same weapon of the same type. (536-E-F) 
G 
1.3. Prosecution has proved with reasonable certainty that respondent 
B was holding the legs of the deceased when his ne

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