LexSTATE OF RAIASTHAN versus ANI @ HANIF AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
) STATE OF RAIASTHAN A . v. -I ANI @ HANIF AND ORS. 1 JANUARY 13, 1997 I (DR. A.S. ANAND AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] B ··<!' Criminal Law: Evidence Act, 1872 : Section 165 : Trial Judge-Powers and duty of-:-:Tlial Judge interjected dwing cross- examination of a witness to get a confusion in his mind cleare~Held: the c tlial Judge was within his powers in so inte1jectin15The trial Judge had vast and unrestlicted powers to put any question in any f omi at any stage, to any witness, to elicit the trntlt-Judge remaining mute dwing t1ial was not an ideal situation-He was expected to actively participate in the trial. ,y Oiminal Procedure Code, 1973 _: Section f54. D Oiminal Trial-Appreciation of evidence-!11jured eye witness stated in FIR that it was recorded in the evening-Whereas police version was that it was recorded i11 the moming-He/d: this discrepancy, 011 the facts of the case, was 1101 enough to cascade the testimony of an important eye witness, whlse presence at the spot could not be doubte~The maximum consequence was E that the First lnfonnation Statement could not be used to corroborate tile evidence of tile maker of it. ~ Criminal Trial-Appreciation of evidence - FIR - name of injured eye witness not mentioned in FIR as one of those present duri11g tile incident - F Held: Evidence of such injured eye witness could not be rejected merely because of no11-mention of his name i11 FIR-77te conditio11 of the maker of the FIR and whether he was in a positio11 to reproduce the vivid details of the occu1Tence, should be bome in mind. Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302, 307 and 326. G -~ Crimi11al Trial-Appreciation of evide11ce--Murde1~PW-3, a11 injured eye witness, ide11tified all six accused in court as assailants-But in FIR filed by him only names off our accused were me11tio11ed but not the n,antes of the remaining two accuse~PW-3 not involved in test identification parade--Held the two accused were entitled to benefit of doubt and were H 199 ~ \. 200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) 1 S.C.R. A rightly acquitted by High Court-But High Court erred in setting aside convic- + tion recorded by tlial court against these four accused, overlooking the· • evidence of PW-3 and other important witnesses examined by the prosecu- tio11_:_Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed by trial court against "" these four accused restored--Evidence Act, 1872, S.9. B The respondents-accused were convicted by the Sessions Court under Sections 302, 307 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal )i· Code, 1860. But the High Court, on appeal by the respondents, acquitted them all. Hence this appeal. c .. According to the prosecution, the deceased along with PW-3 were travelling in a bus for reaching the Court where they had to appear as accused in a case. Their uncle, PW~ is, was also travelling with them. When the bus halted at a stop, the respondents variously armed with swords and hatchets boarded the bus and shot at the deceased and PW-3. The respon- D dents dragged the deceased and PW-3 out of the bus and showered blows on t~em. The deceased died at the spot, but PW-3 was saved by prompt '(, ·medical attention. The DIG and his staff Officer, PW-11, who were going by that way in a car saw the respondents armed witb swords and hatchets and PW-11 identified them. A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged and a_ post-mortem was held. The respondents were arrested and in- E criminating articles were recovered from them. On behalf of the appellants It was contended that the High Court had overlooked the evidence of PW·3 and other important witnesses ex· amined by the prosecution. ~ F .On behalf of the respondents it was contended that it was improper for the Trial Judge to have interjected during the cross-ex:aminatio" of PW-3; that PW-3 stated that the FIR was recorded in the eveniag whlle the police version was that it was recorded in the morning and there was a discrepancy in his evidence; and that the evidence of the injured witness, G PW-18, must be rejected since his name was not mentioned in the FIR as one of those present during the incident. Allowing the appeal, this Court ~ HELD: 1.1. Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872 confers vast and H unrestricted powers on the trial court to put "any question he pleases, in any ) STA TE v. ANI@ HANIF 201 torm, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties, about ally fact relevant or ·A · irrel
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.