LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus CHAMRU@BHAGWANDAS ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
...... -~ L I ST A TE OF MAD HY A PRADESH v. CHAMRU@BHAGWANDAS ETC. ETC. JUNE 19, 2007 [DR. ARIJIT PASAY AT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] Penal Code, I 860-ss. 302, 307 and 324-Prosecution for charges under the provisions-Three child eye-witnesses-identification of the accused in Tl Parade-Accused shown to two of the witnesses prior to Tl Parade- Conviction by Trial Court relying on the version of eye-witnesses and Tl Parade-Death sentence to one accused and life imprisonment to co-accused- High Court acquitting the accused-On appeal, held: Acquittal was justified- Evidence of PWs and Tl Parade are not credible. The appellants-accused were charged for a quadruple murder. According to prosecution, due to previous enemity over some lan1, the accused assaulted the deceased persons and PWs. 3 and 7 while they were sleeping. The incident was seen by 3 child witnesses i.e. PWs, 3, 7 and 8. The accused was identified by the three witnesses in Test Identification Parade. Trial Court relying on the identification, convicted both the accused persons u/s 302, 307 and 324 r/w s, 34. Accused 'C' was sentenced to death while the co-accused to life imprisonment. High Court, holding that Test Identification Parade was farce as the accused was known to the children and he was shown to the children before the T I Parade, and disbelieving the evidence of PW-3, acquitted the accused of all the charges. Hence the present appeal. Dismissed the appeal, the Court HELD : The judgment of the acquittal passed by the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity. It is not merely a case of non-mention of the names. Undisputedly, the photographs of accused 'C' were shown to two of the child witnesses before the Test Identification Parade. That took away the effect of the Test ·identification Parade. PW-3, who was not shown the photographs, a bare perusal of her evidence in court shows that she was not a credible witness and was tutored. She has categorically stated that she knew the accused by name. Her evidence also shows that she was tutored. Most of her 1055 A B c D E F G H 1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007 j 7 S.C.R. A statements in court were exaggerations and embellishments. Secondly, most of the vital facts were not stated during investigation. It is of significance to note that in her evidence, she stated that PW-8 was also assaulted by the assailants. This is clearly contrary to the prosecution version. All other witnesses, who claimed to be eye-witnesses, have categorically stated that PW- 8 ·had managed to go away and had seen the occurrence from behind the screen. B That was also the version of PW-8. That being so, the version of PW-3 that she was also attacked, is clearly a vulnerable point so far as the prosecution care is connected. !Paras 10, 11and12111060-C-D; 1059-G-H; 1060-B-CI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 743-744 C of2002. From the Final Order and Judgment and dated 18.07.200 I of High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Reference No. I of 2000, Crl. Appeal No. 628 of2000 and 629 of2000. . D R.P. Gupta, Sunny Chowdhary (for C.D. Singh) for the Appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. I. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, E Jabalpur directing acquittal of the respondents. The Tri~I Court had found the accused Chamru guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC'). He was awarded death penalty for the quadruple murders. Accused Geetabai was awarded life imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 !PC along with sentence of fine. They were both sentenced to ten years' F rigorous imprisonment and three years' rigorous imprisonment on the other two heads of charge along with various sums of fine. Both acc1..:sed challenged their conviction and sentence and filed appeals. The Trial Court made a reference to Section 366 of the Crim in al Procedure Code, 1973 (in short 'the Code') for confirmation of the death sentence. The High Court found the G prosecution version to be not cogent and credible and directed acquittal. It may be noted that there was a grues0me murder of four persons. Two of them were minors. Though the High Court was conscious of this fact, yet, it found the evidence of the witnesses to be not credible and coge
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.