TULSIRAM & ORS. versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2008] 8 S.C.R. 453 · Decided: 13-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 8 S.C.R. 453 
~> 
TULSIRAM & ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. · 
(Criminal Appeal No.869 Of 2008) 
MAY 13, 2008 
B 
[C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.325 and 323 rlw s.34 -Alleged 
assault on PWs 5 and 6 with lethal weapons - Causing inju-
ries to both - Conviction of Appellants by Courts below- Chai- c 
lenge to - Held: From the evidence, it appears that the pros-
ecution has not come with clean hands and the genesis 'be-
comes doubtful - PW5 himself was declared 'hostile' by the 
prosecution - Also, contradiction between medical evidence 
and evidence of PW5 with regard to number of injuries sus-
D 
) 
fained by him - Further, while according to PW5, the injuries 
were caused by farsi, luhangi and sticks, tt1e medical opinion 
showed that injuries were possible by 'hard' and 'blunt'_ sub-
stance and not by any 'sharp' weapon - No incise wound was 
found on the person of PW5- PW6's evidence also was.shaky E 
- He was not sure as to with which weapon, he was beaten -
Moreover, according to him, he lodged a report at the police 
station on which his signature was taken, but that report is not 
forthcoming- P~'/9 who had intervened in the scuffle, was also 
declared 'hostile' - His evidence a/so did not go to show that 
-. 
the incident had happened in the manner deposed by the pros-
F 
ecution - Considering the facts and circumstancHs in their 
totality, it cannot be said 'beyond reasonable doubt' that Uw 
accused-appellants had committed the offences with which 
they were charged - Conviction accordingly set aside. 
PWs 5 and 6 were running passenger-jeep between G 
two destinations. According to the prosecution, the ac-
cused persons demanded Rs.50/- per day per trip frori1 
PWs 5 and 6 and when they did not oblige, assaulted them 
453 
H 
454 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2008] 8 S.C.R. 
A with lethal weapons like sticks, farsa and /uhangi. Both 
PWs 5 and 6 were injured in the occurrence. Trial Court 
convicted the accused-Appellants under ss. 325 and 323 
r/w s.34 IPC. High Court confirmed the conviction. 
The conviction of Appellants was challenged before 
8 this Court on various grounds, viz. that the genesis of 
the prosecution was doubtful; that apart from the omis-
sions and material contradictions in the testimony of wit-
nesses, even the medical evidence did not support the 
case of the prosecution; that while according to PW4 (the 
C doctor), PW5 received only 3 injuires, PW5 himself stated 
that he had received 28 injuries; that PW5 had stated be-
fore the Police that there were other persons over and 
above accused and even those persons had assaulted 
him, but thereafter, totally turned round and stated on oath 
D before the Court that other persons were not there and 
further that the evidence of injured PW6 wa:. of no use to 
the prosecution as after receiving injury, he had left the 
place and was not there. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. From the evidence, it appears that the pros-
ecution has not come with clean hands and the genesis 
becomes doubtful. [Para 18] [462-A,B] , 
2. The prosecution-witnesses and in particular the 
F star witness injured, PW5 himself was declared 'hostile' 
by the prosecution as it was clear that though initially his 
case was that over and above four persons who were 
beforn the Court, three other persons were very much 
present, but subsequently, he stated that they were not 
G present. Not only that three other persons were present 
at the scene of offence, but they were armed with weap-
ons, their common object was to beat the witness and in 
fact they attacked the witness with /athis. The initial case, 
however, was subsequently totally changed and the wit-
H ness had gone to the extent that over and above four ac-
\ . 
• 
TULSIRAM & ORS. v. STATE OF· ' · 
455 
M.P. 
cused before the Court, nobody was present and he was A 
not attacked and beaten by anyone else. According'to the 
said witness, he had sustained several ipjuries (28 inju-
ries) but according to the medical evidence, there wer.e 
only three injuries on the person of PW 5. Further, accord-
ing to the witness, the injuries were caused.by tarsi, luhangi B 
and sticks. Medical opinion, on the other han'di .go~s to 
show that injuries were possible by 'hard' and 7brunt' sub'-
stance and not by any 'sharp' weapon. All th.e .three inju-
ries referred to hereinabove also Ciearly 'prove it: They 
were all lacerated wounds and no incise wound was found c 
on the person of PW5. [

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