LexSTATE OF HARYANA versus SHAKUNTLA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 5 S.C.R. 276 STATE OF HARYANA v. SHAKUNTLA AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 658 of 2008) APRIL 19, 2012 [A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 325, 148 and 149 - Murder - Common object - Armed assault on PW4's parents causing c 30133 injuries on different parts of their body and consequently their death - Earlier, on one occasion accused 'M' and 'R' had beaten PW4's parents, for which they were facing criminal trial, and on another occasion they had abused and beaten PW4 - All nine accused convicted by trial 0 court - High Court accepted the plea of alibi taken by three accused i.e. 'S', 'P' and 'Sa' and acquitted them but upheld conviction in relation to the other six accused (including 'M' and 'R') -Cross-appeals by State and the six convicted 'accused - Held: M' and the other accused had been looking E for an opportunity to fight with PW4's father and his family members, on one pretext or the other - All the accused, except those acquitted by the High Court, had participated with a common mind to cause fatal injuries upon the parents of PW4 - PW-4, in his statement, clearly and definitely explained the F occurrence, by attributing specific role to each one of the accused - His version fully supported by that of PW-5, other documentary evidence on record and also medical evidence . - The members of the assembly had acted in furtherance to the common object and the same object was made absolutely clear by the words of accused 'M' when he exhorted all the G others to 'finish' the deceased persons - PW4's father, admittedly, had fallen on the ground - However, the accused still continued inflicting heavy blows on him and kept on doing so till he breathed his last - They did not even spare PW4's H 276 STATE OF HARYANA v. SHAKUNTLA AND ORS. 277 mother and inflicted as many as 33 injuries on her body - A Where a person has the intention to cause injuries simplicitor to another, he/she would certainly not inflict 30133 injuries on the different parts of the body of the victim, including the spine - The spine is a very delicate and vital part of the human body - It, along with the ribs protects all the vital organs of the body, B the heart and lungs, etc. - Powerful blows on these parts of the body can, in normal course, result in the death of a person, as has happened in the instant case - The way in which the crime has been committed reflects nothing but sheer brutality - Conviction of six accused (as ordered by trial court and High c Court) affirmed - As regards the other three accused 'S', 'P' and 'Sa', the High Court accepted their plea of alibi keeping in view the evidence led by the defence witnesses and acquitted them - It was for the State to show that the High Court completely fell in error of law or that judgment in relation to 0 these accused was palpably erroneous, perverse or untenable - However, none of these parameters were satisfied in appeal preferred by the State against acquittal of the three accused - Judgment of High Court accordingly not interfered with. Witness - Interested witness - Appreciation of - Held: E Once, the statement of a witness is found trustworthy and is duly corroborated by other evidence, there is no reason for the Court to reject the statement of such witness, merely on the ground that it was a statement of a related or interested witness - In the present case, the presence of PW-4 and PW- F 5 (i.e. the children of the deceased couple) at the place of occurrence was natural and their statements were trustworthy, corroborated by other evidence and did not suffer from the vice of suspicion or uncertainty - 30 and 33 injuries respectively were caused on the bodies of the two deceased, G but still, PW-4 and PW-5 attributed specific role to each individual accused, particularly with regard to the grievous injuries caused by them - The Court has to give credence to their statements as they lost their close relations and had no reason to falsely implicate the accused persons, who were H 278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R. A a/so their relations. Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Acquittal by High Court - Interference with - Scope of - Held: Against the judgment of acquittal, onus is on the prosecution to show that 8 the finding recorded by the High Court is perverse and requires correction by Supreme Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.