Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges: Justice G.S. Singhvi, Justice C.K. Prasad
Date of Judgement: 6 July 2010
Facts of the Case: Appellants Suraj and Hari Singh alongwith Shyam, Gulab and Baladin were put on trial for offence under Sections 302/149, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Baladin died during the pendency of the trial. All of them were convicted for offence under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by Judgment and Order dated 8th December, 1981 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur. Shyam, Gulab and Appellant Suraj were also convicted under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment. Appellant Hari Singh was also found guilty under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. All the convicted persons including the appellants herein preferred appeal before the Allahabad High Court which was dismissed. Convicts Shyam and Gulab died during the pendency of appeal and their appeal had abated. Aggrieved, appellants preferred an Appeal by Special leave to the Supreme Court.
Judgement: Appellants denied to have committed the offence. From the cross-examination, their defence was of false implication. The prosecution had examined altogether six witnesses out of whom Smt. Sirawan (PW.1), Swamidin (PW.2) and Dhanti (PW.3) claimed to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Prosecution had also examined Dr. A.K. Srivastava (PW.6), the Medical Officer, who had conducted post mortem on the dead body of Mansha on 30th March, 1980 at 10.30 A.M. Trial Court relied on the evidence of the eye-witnesses and the doctor, held the appellants guilty which has been affirmed in the appeal. Dr. A.K. Srivastava (PW. 6) also had stated that all the injuries sustained by the deceased. In his evidence as also in the post-mortem report, he had stated that the deceased had sustained sixteen ante-mortem injuries of various kinds and descriptions i.e. contusion, abrasion, laceration, incised & punctured wounds. Cause of death, according to the evidence of this witness as also post-mortem report was haemorrhage and shock as a result of the aforesaid anti-mortem injuries. Merely the fact that PW.6 Dr. A.K. Srivastava had been declared hostile, his entire evidence could not wipe out and for the purpose of nature of injuries and the cause of death, his evidence could be relied on. He had admitted that before giving the opinion, he had not measured dimensions i.e. thickness or depth of the injuries. This opinion of the doctor, which had no foundation deserved to be ignored and had rightly been ignored by the trial Court and the appellate Court.
Smt. Sirawan (PW.1) who happened to be the wife of the deceased Mansha, Swamidin (PW.2), an independent witness and Dhanti (PW.3) who was the daughter of the deceased had clearly stated that it was the appellants alongwith other accused persons who had assaulted the deceased with pharsa, lathi etc. The doctor had found contusion and incised wounds on the person of the deceased. Eye-witnesses’ account were consistent and there was no material contradiction in their evidence to discredit their truthfulness.
Decision: In Court’s opinion, the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The court did not find any merit in the appeal and it was dismissed accordingly.
By: Roopali Mohan, 2nd Year, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, New Delhi