SUNIL KUMAR versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 589 · Decided: 28-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE, B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-,., 
SUNIL KUMAR AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
JANUARY 28, 1997 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.) 
B 
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 147, 302/ 149, 307/ 149-llfurder and 
attempt to murder-Nobody except injured victim presellt at the time of inci-
dent-Victim disclosed names of assailants to the inf onnant i11 presence of c 
another witlles;~lnf onnation reported to police over phone without disclosing 
names of assailants-Held : Non-disclosure of 11ames of assailants to police 
over phone by the inf omiant will not affect the statement of the victim that 
he did disclose the names at the first available opportunity to the inf om1ant, 
as the same was corroborated by the evidence of other witness present and 
~ statement of the victim recorded as dying declaration by the Magistrate and D 
_...._ 
· his statement recorded by tlie police during investigation. 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 154, 161, 164-Telephonic 
inf onnation given by the inf onnant disclosing a cognizable offence on the 
basis of which police started investigation-Must be treated as FIR under 
E 
Section 154-Statement of the victim made to police dwing investigatio11 has 
to be treated as one recorded under 161 Cr.P.C. 
Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 32, 114-Dying Dec/aration-Declarant 
survivin15Such declaratio11 can be treated as statement recorded under Sec-
tion 164 Cr.P.C.-Can be used for corroboration or contradiction. 
F 
Due to enmity over a plot of land, the appellants armed with axes, 
hockey stick and Iathies attacked the deceased. and his brother P.W. 1 and 
-
brutally dismembered them as a result of which the deceased succumbed 
to his injuries instantly and P.W. 1 was seriously injured. At the time of 
the incident nobody else was present but hearing their cries some G 
labourers reached the place of occurrence after the assailants had run 
-'. 
away. Receiving the information, P.W. 2, the mother and P.W. 3, nephew 
of the victims rushed to the spot and P.W. 1 narrated the entire incident 
and disclosed the names of the appellants as assailants to them. P.W. 3 
informed the police over phone about the incident but could not disclose H 
589 
/ 
~ 
590 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997) 1 S.C.R. 
A the names of the assailants due to disturbance in the telephone line. The 
Y' 
police.recorded it in the daily diary and went to the place of occurrence. 
The police recorded the statement of P.W. 1 on the spot and forwarded it 
to the Police Station for registering a case. The dead body was sent for 
L 
post mortem after inquest. P.W. 1 was sent to the hospital and as his 
B condition was critical, a dying declaration was recorded by the Magistrate. 
After the usual. investigation, the appellants were chargesheeted under 
Sections 302/149,307/149 of the India Penal Code. 
The Trial Court acquitted the appellants on the grounds that the 
c 
first information report given by PW 3 did not disclose their names; no 
other witnesses except the interested witnesses were examined and that 
evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 3 was not reliable. On appeal, reversing the 
judgment of the trial court, the High Court held that the findings of the 
trial court were perverse and against the evidence on record; the trial court 
was wrong to drawn an adverse presumption for non-examination of 
D material witnesses; and the evidence of PW 1, as corroborated by P.Ws. 2 
and 3 as well as the F .I.R. and the medical evidence clearly proved the case 
>-
of the prosecution. The appellants filed the present appeal against the 
judgment of the High Court. 
E 
Dismissing the appeal this Court 
HELD : 1. The finding of the trial court that the evidence of PW 1 is 
wholly unreliable is patently perverse. Except the two victims there was 
nobody present at the time the assaults actually took place. P.W. 1 was 
F 
the sole eye witness. His evidence was corroborated by the evidence of 
P.W. 2, the mother and PW 3, the nephew, of the victims, who reached 
the place of occurrence soon after the incident and to whom P.W. 1 
narrated the entire incident and also disclosed the names of the as-
sailants. The evidence of PW 1 was also corroborated by his statement 
recorded by the police Inspector at the initiation of the investigation on 
-c::
G the spot, as well as his other statement recorded by the Magistrate as 
a dying declaration. Besides, the evidence of the doctors also fully sup-
ports the evidence of P.W. 1. [599-F] 
~ 
2. The trial court erred in acquitti

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