STATE OF U.P. versus KISHAN CHAND AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 640 · Decided: 20-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF U.P. 
V. 
KISHAN CHAND AND ORS. 
AUGUST 20, 2004 
B 
[B.N. AGRAWAL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.) 
Criminal Trial: 
Witnesses-Interested witness-Testimony-Reliability of-Held: If 
C the testimony of the interested witness inspires confidence it cannot be 
discarded. 
Witnesses-Injured witness-Testimony-Reliability of-Held: The 
testimony of an injured witness has its own relevance and efficacy-The 
D fact that the witnesses sustained injures at the time and place of occurrence 
lends support to their testimony that the witnesses were present during the 
occurrence. 
Injuries on the accused-Failure to explain-Effect of-At the time 
of arrest, accused tried toj/ee and in that process sustained some injures 
E when beaten by the arresting party, which were simple in nature-Held: 
F 
The said injuries, being simple in nature, non-explanation of the injuries 
sustained by the accused would not vitiate the trial. 
Penal Code, 1860: 
Section 149-Applicability of-Held: The relevant question to 
be examined by the court is whether the accused was a member of an 
unlawful assembly and not whether he actually took active part in the crime 
or not. 
G 
Section 149-Unlawful assembly-For»1ation of-One of the accused 
persons was at the roof and he instigated the other accused to finish the 
prosecution party-Effect of-Held: An assembly, which was not an 
unlawful assembly when it assembled, may subsequently become an 
unlawf11l assembly-Hence, the said accused person formed an unlawful 
H assem_bly to pe1petrate the crime. 
640 
-. 
STATE v. KISHAN CHAND 
641 
Section 149-Common object-Determination of-On a festival day A 
when the singing was going on, the accused appeared at the scene with 
gun and country made pistols and hockey sticks and attacked the prosecution 
party and fired indiscriminately resulting in the death of two persons-
Held: From the surrounding facts and circumstances of this case, it is clear 
that the accused did form an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of that B 
common object of the unlawful assembly, crime has been perpetrated. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
Section 386(b)(i)-Powers of appellate court-Conviction-Reversal C 
of Accused was convicted on the basis of evidence of four eyewitnesses, 
two related and two independent-Their testimony found reliable-
Contention was raised to the effect that the trial court, after the case record 
was reconstructed, did not properly consider the statement made by the 
accused under S. 313-Validity of-Held: In view of the reliability of the 
evidence, such a contention not sustainable-Hence, High Court erred in D 
acquitting the accused resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. 
According to the prosecution the respondents-accused formed an 
unlawful assembly and in furtherance of the common object murdered 
two persons and caused injuries to PWs 1 and 8. The trial court, relying E 
upon the testimony of the eyewitnesses, convicted the accused persons. 
But the High Court acquitted them. Hence the appeal. 
On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the eyewitnesses 
were interested witnesses and were related to the deceased; that the F 
eyewitnesses falsely deposed against the accused because of animosity; 
that non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused caused 
prejudice to the accused; and that after the reconstruction of the case 
record, the statement made by the accused under Section 313 of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had not been properly considered 
by the trial court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Animosity is a double-edged sword, it cuts both sides. 
G 
It could be a ground for false implication and it could also be a ground H 
642 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A for assault. Just because the witnesses are related to the deceased 
would be no ground to discard their testimony, if otherwise their 
testimony inspires confidence. In the given facts of the present case 
they are but natural witnesses. There is no reason to disbelieve their 
testimony. Similarly, being the relatives, it would be their endeavor to 
B see that the real culprits are punished and normally they would not 
implicate the wrong persons to the crime, so as to allow the real culprits 
to escape unpunished. [645-G-H; 646-A-B[ 
1.2. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevance and 
C efficacy. The fact that the witnesses sustained injures at the time and 
place of occurrence lends support to their testim

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