LexVINOD CHATURVEDI ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
··" • 93 VJNODCHATURVEDI ETC. EJ'C. • v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ' . March S, 1984 (S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.] • Appeal against acquittal under section 386 of the Criminal Procedure "Code, 1973-Convictio11 by re:versal.of th; verdict of acquittal relying on the evidence of the same wltnesfes; who are .clo_se relatives of the de.ceased and who in the earlier trial categqrical/y implicated someother five persons-Appreciation of evidence-Whether the High_ Co_uri was correct in relying on the said eye witnesses-Evidence Act, -section J...,...AdmissihilitY of Ex. P. ]'and E;v. P. 9, the tWo letters as corroborative evidence-Penal Code, sectionJ 148, 300, 362 and 367-Conviction Under Applicability of section !48 when the state coUnQel conceded tliat the charge u/J 148 cf id nOt relate to charge of ~bduction, but to murder taking place /ater. On the basis or the investigation made on "a First Information Report that one Brindaban the. deceased son of PW 1 was kidnapped in a jeep fr6m village Budba to the village Rarnpura whe~e h~ was _done to death, five person_s were put on trial in. Sessions Trial No. 107 of 1973, but they were acquitted by Judgment date.d 29.1.1974. The trial court held that the investigation was defective and the real accused had not been brought ori trial. After a lapse of three years in 1977 a fresh investigati0:n was undertaken and it resulted _in the ·prosecution of the present appell..,ts in the Court of Sessions as killers of Bfinda.ban. Prosecution examined seven eye-witneS~es. The Trial ·Court assessed- the' evidence in a fair way and was· not prepared to rely. on ii and therefore directed acquittal of the appellants. In the State appeal againot acquittal, the High Court heavily relying upon two documents-The first being Ex. l>. 1 a lettersent by PW I Sunderlal (9 the Superintendent of Police on 29.4.1973 nd the second being Ex. P 9 a confidential letter of the Superinten- dent of olice to the Deputy Inspector• General of the Department-found support 1 or the prosecutioJl case as corroborative· evidence with the ocular evidence and reversed the acquittal, by convicting the appellants under section 148 and l6~ IPC. Hence the;appeals by special leave. · Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD : I. When in the first trial on the charge of murder and abduction the prosecution had alleged that the deceased had been murdered by I Cl .D I r . a •et of five persons different from the present appellants and let in evidence of H • three eye-'-witnesses bloing. PWs. 1, 3 and 24 of the Second Trial and who aro iiamittedly close relations of dece~sed t6 the ~~ect that tho~ fiv~ . ~CC¥~ . A B 94 SUPREME.COURT REPORTS (1984) 3 S.C.R. persons.and no ~thers incI~ding the appellants were responsible for the death . of the deceased. acceptance of the evidence of the ve~y same three eye witnesse1 in tbe second trial conducted after a lapse: of. three· years implicating the present appellants as murderers will be higl\ly imp;oper. . The fact that these alleged eye-witnesses were pi:epared ·to implicate ·the five persons who were acquitted on the earlier occasion and the present appellants on the subsequent occasions in a serious charge like murder is indicative of the fact that no credence can be given to the evidence of these witnesses and they were willing< to lend their. oath to any story. that the prosecution. advanced. Therefore, in an appeal against .acquittal the High Court in whose hands there has been a revirsal of the acquit tat ollght not to have found the remain- ing evidence to be good basis for conviction ofihe appellants. [96H; 97A-D] 2. The ·High Co(irt fell into error in relying on the Jetter of PW I Sunaerlal to the Superintendent of Police dated 29.4.1973 which ii subsequent tO the commencement of the 'investigation of the basis on the First Information Report. Such a letter written by PW I who stood in the place of the p~ose- cutor would. not ai alt'be admissible in·evidence. [97E-F) . '· Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh. [1974] I SCR '22; ~ •. followed. E 3. To rely on the contents of the lettO:r Ex. P. 9 written bi the Superin· tend,;nt. of police to_ his superior officer,. Without examining the writer of th~ letter and without affording an ·opportunity to· the defence to Cross- examine the writer,. is totally misconceived. The document w-as no.t availa- ble to be relied upon for any pu~po
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.