LexUMAR MOHAMMAD & ORS. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
UMAR MOHAMMAD & ORS. A ' --+ v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN DECEMBER 12, 2007 [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] B Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3021149, 3231149, 148 and 147 - ~- Murder of two and injuries to one, over dispute between parties - Conviction and sentence by Courts below - Sustainability of - Held: Number of injuries inflicted on deceased persons and injured c show that large number af persons took part- There was sufficient light for identification of accused - FIR was lodged in short time - Oral testimonies of eyewitnesses was corroborated by medical evidence - Minor contradictions in the evidence of eyewitnesses would not discredit their testimonies in entirety-Non-disclosure of D certain facts in FIR and also non-recovery of weapons of offence would not affect the prosecution case - Thus, orders of courts below sustainable except for one accused who is given benefit of doubt - Evidence. According to the prosecution case, over a property dispute E 12 armed persons including the appellants attacked JM, JR and M. It is alleged that IA gave exhortation to shoot JM and his brothers. Accused hit JM and JR with lathis resulting in their death and assaulted Mon his head and other parts of the body. F First informant ran away from the place of incident and went to PW-6, nephew of JM and JR. PW-6 then lodged the FIR. He also gave his statement. Prosecution examined PW 1-M, injured witness, PW-4- first informant and PW-8. They were also eyewitnesses. Trial court convicted and sentenced the appellants G under sections 148, 323/149 and 302/149 IPC. Appellants N, J, . ,,. UM, R, A and JL were also convicted and sentenced u/s 147 IPC . ·-,: Aggrieved, appellants filed appeals and the same were dismissed except appeal of D. Hence, the present appeals. 273 H 274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. A Dismissing Criminal appeal Nos.382-386 of 2004 and allowing Criminal Appeal No.387 of2004, the Court. -t- HELD: 1.1 The injuries inflicted on the two deceased persons, as also injured witness in details, show that having regard B to number of injuries inflicted on them, it may safely be assumed that a large number of persons took part therein. The gun shot injuries suffered by JM also establish that shot was fired from a close distance. Further, both the courts below arrived at a concurrent finding of fact that there was sufficient light for 'i c identification of the accused. [Paras 23, 24 and 26) [282-G; 283- A-B] 1.2 The evidences of the three eye witnesses, namely, PW-1, PW-4 and PW-8 are almost identical. They narrated the whole incident and described the manner in which it took place. Some D minor contradictions had been pointed out but the said contradictions are not such which would discredit their testimonies in their entirety. [Para 29) [284-B) 1.3 FIR was lodged within a short time. It appears from the E cross-examination that apart from the alleged land dispute with MJ, a dispute existed between the parties in regard to one woman, R. Further, immediately after the lodging of the FIR, the Investigating Officer came to the place ofincident. Inquest report was also prepared without any loss of time. Even at that time, M F was unconscious. Inquest reports were witnessed, by PW-2 and PW-3. Presence of the informant, was also testified by the said witnesses. [Paras 27 and 30) [283-B; 284-C] \ "i 1.4 Oral testimonies of the said eye witnesses got corroborated by the medical evidence. No discrepancy between G the ocular evidence and medical evidence was brought to the notice: Homicidal nature of death of JM and JR and injuries suffered by M are not in dispute. Although the evidence of PW- ... 6 was not relied upon by Trial Judge in regard to his statement 'r of hatching of a conspiracy by all the accused persons to commit H the said offence as the same had not been disclosed in the FIR, UMARMOHAMMAD & ORS. 275 v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN there is no reason to disbelieve his statement to the effect that A ~ he scribed the FIR at about 5.00 a.m. on 26.10.1996 and that at the request of PW-4 he wrote down the same. Further, the informant did not disclose the fact in the FIR that PW-1 was lying unconscious. It is now well settled that FIR need not be encyclopedic. It was a fact. It was found to be correct. [Paras 31 B and 32) [284-D-G) 1.5 There is no force in the submission that the weapons of y offences were not recovered. In any even
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.