VIKRAM AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 185 · Decided: 09-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

VIKRAM AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
MAY 9, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 : 
ss.3021149-Common object-Accused persons 8 in number came 
together-Assaulted deceased and injured indiscriminately PW. 2- Wife of C 
deceased tried to intervene but they did not stop-Deceased and injured 
dragged upto the river-Many other persons came there whereafter accused 
fled-Accused rightly convicted under ss.3021149 as they had common object 
to cause death of deceased. 
Criminal trial : 
FIR-Delay in filing-Effect-Held: Not fatal as there was no police · 
post in village-Police was informed-Witnesses waited for police party- · 
Thereafter only could send deceased and injured to hospital-Explanation 
D 
of PW-2 that they gave priority to treatment of deceased which occasioned E 
delay in lodging FIR rightly accepted by Courts below-No reason to discard 
testimony of PW-2 who is an independent witness-Evidence. 
Prosecution case was that accused had committed murder of one D and 
caused hurt to PW-6 on 22.1.1997 at about 10.30 p.m. FIR in respect thereof 
was lodged at 7.30 a.m. on 23.1.1997 by PW-2 alleging that while he had been F 
sleeping in his house after taking meal, his uncle PW-3 came to his house to 
1 
inform him that thieves had come and some 'tumult' is going on, whereupon 
both of them went towards the place of occurrence and found that both the 
deceased and the injured were being assaulted by accused persons. They, 
although, tried to intervene, but were threatened not to do so. He thereafter G 
went to the house of the deceased and informed his wife who came to the place 
of occurrence. Other persons also came to the spot. The injured were, by 
that time dragged upto the river by the assailants. They were asked to stop 
assaulting and were futhermore requested that in the event they had any 
dispute with him in regard to their land should take recourse to the law 
185 
If 
186 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 6 S.C.R. 
A whereupon the assailants left them in the river and fled. Both the deceased 
and PW-6 were found to be unconscious. P.W.2 informed the Officer in 
charge of Police Station on telephone about the incident. On receipt of the 
said information, a police officer visited the place of occurrence. The injured 
were later on shifted by the police personnel to the Government Hospita~ where 
D was declared dead. P.W.8 registered a case under ss. 147, 148,149 and 
B 302 IPC. The prosecution case was proved primarily by PW-2 the informant, 
PW-3, PW-4 and the injured witness P.W.6. Trial Court recorded conviction, 
which was affirmed by High Court. 
Hence the present appeal. 
c 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Homicidal nature of death of the deceased and sufferance of 
injuries by P.W. 6 is not in dispute. All the injuries were caused by hard and 
blunt objects like lathi. It is also not in dispute that the parties were having 
D dispute over some lands. It has also not been suggested that PW-2 was 
enemically disposed of towards the appellants. Both the parties are from the 
said Village. [Paras 7, 12, 13 and 14] (191-B; 192-E, F] 
2. P.W.2 in the First Information Report as also in his deposition before 
-1 
the Court categorically stated that eight persons i.e. the appellants and three 
E juveniles were assaulting the deceased and PW-6, he was told that he had no 
business to interfere as he was not concerned with the matter. He immediately 
informed T and R. T and R also asked the appellants to leave the deceased, 
but not only assault upon them did not stop, they were dragged towards the 
river on the western side. Some other persons in the meantime came to the 
spot and they also asked the accused to leave the victims. There was no police 
F post in the village. As he was advised to make a phone call, keeping in view 
the fact that the deceased and injured were to be brought back to the village, 
P.W. 2 had to go to the house of M to wake him up as the Gram Panchayat 
Office, where the phone was available, was adjoining to his house. His 
information to the police officers could not have been in great details. As he 
G was assured that the police would be coming, he waited for the police party. 
The police party came at about 1 a.m. Then only the deceased and the injured 
could be sent to the hospital. It appears from the evidence of Doctor, that the 
deceased was brought to the hospital under a requisition letter. It was 
evidently issued by the Inv
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.