SUBHASH CHANDRA & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2009] 9 S.C.R. 398 · Decided: 15-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 9 S.C.R. 398 
A 
SUBHASH CHANDRA & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 2008) 
B 
MAY 15, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3021149, 3241149, 3231149, 147 
and 148 - Murder of one and injuries to two - Conviction by 
c · courts below - Based on evidence of injured witness - On 
appeal, plea of contradiction of the statements of the 
witnesses vis-a-vis FIR and Injury Report -
Held: 
Contradictions of statements vis-a-vis FIR are not major and 
vital - Statements are corroborated by medical evidence -
D Prosecution case proved - conviction upheld. 
Courts below convicted all the appellants-accused u/ 
ss. 302/149, 324/149, 323/149 IPC. Two of the accused 
were further convicted u/ss. 147 and 148 IPC. Conviction 
1= 
E was based on evidence of PW1 and 2, the injured 
witnesses. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellants contended that conviction u/s. 302 IPC 
was not c,alled for, as the statements of the witnesses 
were in contradiction with the version in FIR and the 
F injury report; and that the weapons used being blunt 
shows lack of intention to kill, on the part of the accused. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The statements in the First Information 
G Report is by and large are corroborated with the evidence 
of the witnesses, and therefore, there cannot be any 
doubt against the accused persons that they have, 
committed the offence. [Para 20] [409-E-F] 
H 
398 
f;)UBH~SH CHANDRA & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 
399 
.. 
2. A comparative reading of the injury reports of the 
A 
.., 
deceased, injured witnesses and one of the accused, and 
.. 
the post mortem examination report along with the 
statements of the witnesses and the statements made in 
the FIR, would indicate that the deceased received 
grievous injuries both with blunt and sharp-edged 
B 
weapons. There are stab wounds, incised wounds along 
with lacerated wounds, wtiich suggest that not only blunt 
weapon was used but sharp edged weapon was also 
used. In fact, ttu~ injury report submitted by the doctor of 
the Primary Health Center had also stated that sh(!rp c 
weapon like ballam was also used. The evidence of the 
doctor who had conducted the post mortem examination 
.._ 
and given a report, reveals that his evidence is also of 
similar nature. It is, therefore, established that in the First 
Information Report the nature in which the incident had 
D 
occurred and the nature of the injuries received by the 
deceased and the injured were correctly recorded. The 
deceased has suffered multiple injuries. [Para 17] [408-
A-E] 
3. The very fact that the accused were having blunt 
E 
I 
-
and sharp-edged weapons at the time of scuffle shows 
r 
the intention of the accused persons to commit the 
offence so as to prevent the complainant party from 
·--
watering their field. They had gone to the place of 
occurrence fully prepared and properly a:med with the 
F 
intention of causing death and bodily tnjuries to the 
deceased as also to the other injured persons. [Para 18] 
[409-8-C] 
4. So far as injuries received by one of the accused 
G 
is concerned, it has come in the statement of the 
-
deceased recorded by the investigating officer that he 
had snatched the lathi from the injured accused and 
wielded the same in defence and in the process, the 
accused sustained injuries. Similar statement was also 
H 
400 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 9 S.C.R. 
... 
\ 
A made by PW1, which clearly proves and establishes that 
Y-
the deceased had resisted the accused and tried to 
snatch his lathi, which probably had caused such minor 
~ 
injury to the accused. That fact also proves and 
establishes that none of the complainant party carried 
B any weapon with them. They had not even carried a lathi 
with them otherwise there would have been more injuries. 
The contradictions in between the statements in the First 
) 
Information Report and the statements recorded during 
the trial of PWs 1 anet 2 are not vital and major. The 
'. ' 
c statements of the aforesaid witnesses are also 
sufficiently corroborated with the medical evidence on 
record. The contradictions, which have been sought to 
be pointed out, are found to be only minor in nature and 
...._ 
it in no way affect the substratum of the prosecution case. 
D [Para 18] [408-E-H; 409-A] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 319 of 2008. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 13.07.2007 of the High 
E C9urt of Judic~ture at Allahabad 

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