LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus MAN SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A STA TE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. MAN SINGH AND ORS. AUGUST 13, 2003 B [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAY AT, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: Section 302134-Murder'-Charge under-Injured eyewitnesses_;_Their C evidence recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.-Non-mention of name of one of the witnesses in FIR-Non-examination of independent witness- Prosecution 's failure to produce statement recorded by Tehsildar-Non- mention of knife recovered from the spot, in FIR-Change of time of lodging FIR-Conviction by Trial Court-Acquittal by High Court-On appeal- D Plea that Conviction not to be under Section 302 but at the most, under Section 304-Held: In view of the evidence accused liable to be convicted- In view of injuries, and nature of assault case not covered uls.304. Section 34-Applicability of-Held: In its application it is common intention of the accused which is material and not how they converge on the E place of occurrence. F Criminal Trial: Non-mention of assailants' name in requisition memo of injury-Effect of-Held, such omission does not render prosecution case brittle. . Mention of name of witnesses in FIR-Requirement of-Held: There is no hard and fast rule that the names of all witnesses more particularly eye- witnesses should be indicated in FJR-Evidence of person whose name is not mentioned in FIR does not perforce become suspect. G injured witness-Evidentiary value of-Held: Such witnesses have H greater evidentiary value, their statements cannot be discarded lightly unless compelling reasons exist. Witnesses-Whose statements recorded uls 164 Cr.P.C.-Evidentiary value of-Held: Such witnesses cannot be discarded merely for reason of 460 • STATEOFM.P. v. MAN SINGH 461 their statements being recorded under the provision-Code of Criminal A Procedure, 197 3-Section 164. Respondent-accused were charged under Section 302 r/w Section 34 and Section 324 r/w Section 34 IPC for having caused death of one person and for assaulting PWs 4 and 7, the injured eyewitnesses. During trial 10 prosecution witnesses were examined. PW-8 was examined to substantiate the B claims that oral dying declaration was made by the deceased before him implicating the accused. Accused were convicted under Section 302 r/w Section 34 and two of the accused were convicted under Section 323 r/w Section 34. On appeal, High Court found that there was manipulation about the C time of occurrence in FIR, that during investigation, though the knife was found at the spot of incident, there is no mention as to how it happened to be there; that though the accµsed were named in FIR but were not arrested even after four months of the incident; that the name of PW8 was not mentioned in FIR; that there was no explanation as to the need for recording statement of D the injured witnesses; that provisions of Section 157 Cr.P.C. were not complied with; and that the names of the accused did not find place in the requisition for injury reports. In view of the discrepancies in the prosecution case, accused were not found guilty and hence acquitted. In appeal to this Court, respondents contended that High Court rightly E acquitted the accused; that an independent witness who, according to PW8, was present was not examined; that there is no explanation as to why the statement made by the deceased before Tehsildar, was not brought on record; that Section 34 was not applicable as all the four accused did not come together at the place of occurrence; and that the case is not covered by Section 302 r/ w Section 34 IPC, but the same can at the most be covered u/s 324/325 or F 304 Part II IPC. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The judgment of High Court is indefensible for more reasons than one. It has not been indicated as to why and how the High Court came to G the conclusion about non-compliance with the requirements of Section 157 Cr.P.C. It has not been indicated as to what is the requirement and what proof was required to be adduced. (466-D-E) 2. Importance does not appear to have been attached to the evidence of injured witnesses PWs 4 and 7, on the ground that their statements were H 462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Evidence of witnesses cannot be discarded merely because their statements were recorded under Section 164 of the Code. All that is required as a matter of caution is a careful analysis of the evidence. The evidence of injured witnesses have
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.