LexSUBHASH KRISHNAN versus STATE OF GOA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 10 S.C.R. 271 SUBHASH KRISHNAN v. STATE OF GOA (Criminal Appeal No. 1089 of 2010) AUGUST 17, 2012 [SWATANTER KUMAR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s.1208 rlw s.302, s"S.342, 364, 504 A B r/w s.34 - Wrongful confinement and abduction followed by C murder - A/legation that accused-appellant alongwith the other accused inflicted severe injuries on the victim in which process the victim lost his consciousf.1ess whereafter he was carried away in a Maruti van to a different place where he was hanged to death - Conviction of appellant - Challenge to - o Held: Not tenable - Overwhelming evidence on record that appellant shared common intention a/ongwith the other accused - Clear cut, uncontroverted evidence of PW-21 owner of the Maruti van that it was appellant who took the Maruti van from him which was identified by PW-21 as the one E used for the crime - PW-25, mechanic working in the garage of the deceased, made specific reference to the presence of appellant in the van when the accused persons visited the garage of the deceased to enquire about his whereabouts - PWs 14, 33, 16, 23 and 27 made specific reference to the F overt act played by the appellant in the assault on the deceased with a big knife (ta/war) -Appellant was identified by at least two witnesses PW-14 and 33 in the TIP - Evidence of five other eye witnesses, namely, PWs. 16, 23, 26, 27 and 34 in having identified him in the Court by making specific G reference to the red colour shirt wom by him at the time of the occurrence fully corroborated the version of PWs-14 and 33 - Version of the eye witnesses that they were able to see the specific part played by different accused and, in particular, the 271 H 272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 10 S.C.R. A appellant who was using a ta/war, cannot be rejected, in absence of any malafide attributed to the witnesses - Complicity of appellant in commission of the crime fully established by the prosecution. Penal Code, 1860- ss.342 and 364 rlw s.34 - Conviction B of accused-appellant under - Justification - Held: Justified - Examining the conduct of the appellant along with the other accused in wrongfully restraining the victim by inflicting severe injuries .on his body i.e. by causing as many as 36 injuries in which process the victim Jost his consciousness whereafter he C was shifted to a different place, where the victim was killed by hanging, every description of the offence under ss.342 and 364 with the aid of s.34 clearly made out. Evidence - Identification - Test Identification Parade (TIP) - Procedure followed in holding of the TIP - Challenge D to - Held: Not tenable - Accused-appellant was identified by at least two of the witnesses PW-14 and 33 in the TIP - Accused had raised objection to the effect that they were already shown by the police officials to the said witnesses, whereafter appellant had himself suggested that he be E permitted to change his shirt which was allowed and he thereafter subjected himself to the TIP in which he was identified by PWs-14 and 33 without any hesitation - Nothing elicited in cross examination to hold that the whole of the TIP was not conducted in the manner it was to be held and that F identification of the appellant was not proved in the manner known to law - Evidence of other eye witnesses, namely, PWs-16, 23, 26, 27 and 34 in having identified him in the Court by making specific reference to the red colour shirt wom by him at the time of the occuffl3nce fully corroborated the G version of PWs-14 and 33. Evidence - Ocular evidence - Eye-witnesses - Appreciation of - Murderous assault with various weapons leading to death of a person - Many accused including the H appellant - Occuffl3nce allegedly took place for 4-5 minutes SUBHASH KRISHNAN v. STATE OF GOA 273 - Distance between the place· of occurrence and the point A from which the eye witnesses statedly saw the occurrence more than 70 metres - Plea of accused-appellant that in view of the distance and the time factor, it was impossible for the eyewitnesses to have noted the participation of appellant and the other accused in the crime - Held: Not tenable - The occurrence had taken place at 4. 30 in the evening when there would have been no difficulty for anyone to have a clear view B - Even in the vicinity of 70 metres when about 8 persons were assaulting the deceased with sword, knife and danda on t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.