SUSANTA DAS & ORS. versus STATE OF ORISSA

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 137 · Decided: 06-01-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] l S.C.R. 137 
SUSANTA DAS & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF ORISSA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 244 of 2009) 
JANUARY 06, 2016 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, 
UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 rlw s.149 and s.326 - Conviction 
under - Prosecution case that on the day of incident, PW8, PWJJ 
C 
and deceased were on motorcycle - Appellants five in number armed 
with deadly weapons obstructed their way and when these three 
persons tried to escape, chased them and assaulted them with the 
aid of weapons held by them - As a result one died and PW8 and 
PWJJ received injuries - Conviction by courts below - On appeal, 
held: Recoveries made at the spot disclose that all the appellants 
D 
were waiting at the spot - Recovery of weapons from the spot also 
proved that the appellants while waiting their shared common object 
- Evidence of PW7, 8 and lJ was to the effect that appellants 
participated in the crime and all the five of them ran away from the 
place of incident after causing severe injuries on the deceased as 
E 
well as PW8 and PWJJ - There was no doubt about the presence of 
all the five appellants at the spot - The involvement and the extent 
of participation by the appellants was sufficiently established by 
the prosecution - In view of evidence of the eye witnesses, the 
supporting version of the other witnesses read along with the expert 
medical opinion, again supported by the Post Mortem report and 
F 
the injury report, there is no reason to take a view different from the 
view taken in the impugned judgment - The implication of all the 
five accused was perfectly justified. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The motive for the alleged assault is the grudge 
of the accused-A who contested in the college student election 
in which P. W.8 also contested, who stated to have ultimately won 
the elections. According to the case of the prosecution, all the 
appellants gathered under a mango tree and the recoveries made 
at that spot disclose, whiskey bottles etc., to show that they 
137 
G 
H 
138 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] I S.C.R. 
were waiting at the place of occurrence. The recovery of bhujali 
and the cover at the place of occurrence as disclosed in the inquest 
report supported by the version of P. W.13, investigating officer, 
clearly proved that the assailants while waiting at the spot, shared 
their common object. The common object shared by them 
resulted in the assault on P. W.8. The evidence of P. W.8 showed 
that at the spot, he could notice the accused making their 
appearance from behind a mango tree with each one of them 
holding a deadly weapon. According to P. W.8, accused-A was 
holding a sword; Al was holding a Bhujali and rest of the accused 
were holding cycle chains. On seeing their sudden appearance. 
while riding the motor cycle, P. W.11 apparently lost control and 
in that process, it is narrated by P.W.8 and 11 that accused-A 
gave a sword blow to P.W.8 on his face and when P.W.11 fell down 
from the motorcycle along with P. W.8, A3 and A4 stated to have 
held the deceased while accused-A dealt a sword blow on the 
backside of the head of the deceased, who cried for help. 
Al, 
stated to have inflicted Bhujali blow on the left scapula of the 
deceased and 
when Al attempted to inflict another blow with 
the bhujali, the deceased stated to have attempted to catch hold 
of' the bhujali and sustained injuries on his left hand. [Para 15] 
[145-F-H; 146-A-C] 
2. While the accused were thus inflicting injuries on P. W.11, 
P. W.8 made an attempt to flee, when accused-A dealt a sword 
blow on the left chest of P.W.8. 
When P.W.11, attempted to run 
away, A2 kicked more than thrice and on seeking a Trekker 
moving in that direction, the appellants stated to have ran away, 
which was noticed by P. W. 7 who was crossing that side along 
with one 'D' who was not examined. In the evidence of P.Ws.7, 8 
and 11, it is clearly noted that the appellants participated in the 
crime and all five of them ran away from the place of occurrence 
after causing severe injuries on the deceased as well as P.Ws.8 
and 11. Having regard to the said evidence, as spoken to by 
G P. Ws. 7, 8 and 11, there can be no room for doubt about the 
presence of all the five appellants at the place of occurrence. 
P. Ws 8 and 11 while undergoing treatment at the hospital, 
immediately after the occurrence informed P.W.l, the uncle of 
the deceased, who reached the hospital. P.W.1 wh

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