Supreme Court of India
DEV RAJversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
- Citation
- 2016 INSC 554
- Decided
- 25 July 2016
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- S A BOBDE
Holding
The conviction under Section 302 IPC stands; hostile witness testimony is admissible when corroborated, and there is no ground for interference under Article 136.
Summary
The appellant Devraj was convicted under Section 302 IPC for murdering his cousin amid a land dispute. The prosecution relied on three eye‑witnesses, two of whom were declared hostile, but their testimony was corroborated by other evidence showing Devraj’s assault on the victim. The defence argued that hostile witness testimony should be excluded and that the injuries were insufficient to cause death. The Supreme Court held that a hostile witness’s evidence is admissible if it is corroborated and found reliable, and that the prosecution had proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Applying the limited scope of Article 136, the Court declined to interfere with the lower courts' findings and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether testimony of witnesses declared hostile can be relied upon to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant caused the death of the deceased.
- Whether the Supreme Court may interfere with the findings of fact of the High Court in a criminal appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. 136
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302
Subjects
murderhostile witnessevidenceArticle 136criminal appealIPC Section 302land dispute
Judgment
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 323
DEV RAJ A
v.
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
(Criminal Appeal No. 423 of2015)
JULY25,2016 B
[S.A. BOBDE AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 - Murder - Prosecution case that
appellant and his brother assaulted the victim-deceased and ajier
killing him threw his body along with motorcycle below the bridge -
Trial court convicted the appellant and his brother uls.302 - High
c
Co~rt 'upheld the conviction of the appellant however set aside the
conviction of his brother - On appeal, held: There was overwhelming
evidence to prove that there was animosity between the deceased
and the appellant over land - Eye-witnesses stated that appellant
gave lathi blows to the victim-deceased - The fact of assault by the D
appellant was throughout maintained by the witnesses - Even though
witnesses were declared hostile they maintained their stand that they
saw appellant and accused assaulting the deceased - Prosecution
successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was accused
who had caused homicidal death of the deceased - No interference
E
with the order of conviction.
Evidence: Testimony of hostile witnesses - Evidentiary value,
discussed.
Constitution of India : Art.136 - Scope of interference,
discussed. F
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. PW.7 wife of the deceased, PW.8, PW.13, PW.18,
PW.3 and PW.IO all had stated that there was a land dispute
between the parties. Witness PW.to had also stated that with
regard to the land dispute the leg of the appellant was broken G
and there was animosity between the deceased and the appellant
and accused. The plea of the appellant was that PW.13 and PW.16
having been declared as hostile witnesses their evidence ought
· not to have been relied by the courts below more so when another
eye-witness docs not say that deceased was assaulted by the
H
323
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R.
A appellant. The evidence of a witness who has been declared
hostile can be relied if there are some other material on the basis
of which said evidence can be corroborated. More so, that part
of evidence of a witness as contained in examination-in-chief,
which remains unshaken even after cross-examination, is fully
reliable even though the witness has been declared hostile. The
B
trial began against six accused persons. PW.13 in his examination-
in-chief took the name of the appellant alone who was stated to
have assaulted the deceased. PW-13 did not mention in his
examination-in-chief about the presence of other accused which
may be a reason for the prosecution to get the witness declared
c as hostile. Even in the cross-examination the witness repeated
that he heard the appellant saying "Maro Sale Ko" who had
assaulted the deceased and the deceased cried "Bachao Bachao''.
The factum of assault by the appellant was throughout maintained
by the witness. Thus, even though witness was declared as hostile
witness his evidence so far as the role of the appellant is
D
unshaken. Similar was the evidence of PW.16. The statement of
PW-8 of assault on the deceased when read with the evidence of
PW.13 and PW.16 clearly indicates thatit was the appellant who
had assaulted the deceased which caused death of the
deceased.[Paras 15, 19, 20, 21) [329-H; 330-A-B; 332-D-G; 333-
E E-F]
2. There being clear evidence of stopping of the motorcycle
near pakkar tree and ensuing quarrel and assault on the appellant,
the theory of accident as suggested by the appellant was wholly
unreliable. The prosecution has successfully proved beyond
reasonable doubt that it was accused who had caused homicidal
F
death of the deceased. [Para 24) (334-B,F]
3. The jurisdiction which this Court exercises under Article
136 has its own self-imposed restrictions. Even though the powers
of this Court under Article 136 are very wide, but in criminal
appeals, this Court would not interfere with the concurrent
G findings of facts, save in very exceptional cases. The findings
recorded by the courts below from the evidence on record fully
justify the conviction of accused. The findings recorded by the
courts below can neither be said to be perverse nor contain
any such illegality which may render the findings not reliable.
H [Paras 25, 26, 27) [334-G; 335-F; 336-B-C)
DEVRAJ v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 325
Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana (1976) 1 SCC 389: A
1976 (2) SCR 921 ; Khujji v. State of MP. (1991) 3
SCC 627 : 1991 (3) SCR 1 ; Vinod Kumar vs. State of
Punjab (2015) 3 SCC 220 : 2015 (1) SCR 504 ; Ganga
Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar (2005) 6 SCC 211 ;
Alamelu v. State (2011) 2 SCC 385 : 2011 (2) SCR
B
147- relied on.
Case Law Reference
1976 (2) SCR 921 relied on Para 16
1991 (3) SCR 1 relied on Para 17
c
2015 (1) SCR 504 relied on Para 18
c2005) 6 sec 211 relied on Para 25
2011 (2) SCR 147 relied on Para26 ·
CRIMIN.AL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
D
No. 423 of2015.
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.01.2013 of the High Court
of Judicature ofChhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 780 of
2008.
Akshat Shrivastava, Sarbajit Dutta, Advs. for the Appellant. E
C. D. Singh, AAG, Sagar Suri, Adv. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. I. This appeal has been filed against
the judgment and order dated 7th January, 2013 of the High Court of F
Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 780 of2008. The First Additional
Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No.396 of 2006 had convicted the
appellant-Devraj and Dinda@ Deenanath under Section 302 and 201
IPC and awarded imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-
each for the charge levelled under Section 302 !PC and RI for three
years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the charge under Section G
201 IPC. Four other accused were acquitted by the First Additional
Sessions Judge. The High Court in Criminal Appeal No.780 of 2008
although acquitted the accused Dinda@ Deenanath, it confirmed the
conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The High Court has
set aside the conviction and sentence ofDevraj under Section 201 !PC.
H
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R.
A 2. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court, Devraj
has come up in this appeal.
3. The prosecution case in brief is :
There existed a land dispute between the deceased Devi Prasad
@ Prachar and Devraj, Dinda @ Deenanath. Devraj and Dinda @
B Deenanath are real brothers whereas deceased Devi Prasad was their
cousin brother. On 26th June, 2006, after 8 p.m. when deceased Devi
Prasad was going along with one Ratan Singh Guruji in a motorcycle he
was intercepted by five persons near pakkar tree. The deceased was
beaten by geda and lathi by Devraj, Dinda and others and after killing
c him his body along with motorcycle was thrown below Rakhet Pulia.
The body was seen on next day morning by a boy of village who informed
the wife of the deceased. Thereafter, First Infonnation Report was lodged
by Anita Bai at 10.15 a.m. on 27th June, 2006. Police official came on
the spot prepared death panchnama and site plan. The statements from
various persons were recorded. The charges were framed against six
D accused under Section 147, 148,149, 302 and 201 !PC. The accused
Sheonath, Thema@ Vishwanath, Devraj, Dinda@ Deenanath, Khoru
and Dayalal were sent for trial.
4. The prosecution examined 20 witnesses and placed reliance on
various exhibits. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after examining the
E statements of witnesses held charges under Section 302 and 20 I !PC
proved against accused Devraj and Dinda @ Deenanath, other four
accused were acquitted by the Trial Com1.
5. The Trial Court placed heavy reliance on witnesses PW.8-
Ratan Singh, PW. I 3-Shivlochan and PW.16-Ajar Das who were found
F to be eye-witnesses. The statements of witnesses were found
corroboration from other evidence. Although witnesses PW. I 3-Shivlochan
and PW.16-Ajar Das were declared hostile witnesses and they were
cross-examined but the Trial Court relied on their statements having
found to be truthful and worth reliance.
G 6. Both Devraj and Dinda @ Deenanath filed an appeal before
the High Court. The High Court vide its judgment and order dated 7th
January, 20 I 3 acquitted Dinda @ Deenanath from all the charges.
However, it confirmed the conviction of the appellant-Devraj under
Section 302 !PC while setting aside the conviction under Section 20 I
IPC.
H
DEVRAJ v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 327
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
7. Devraj is before us in this appeal. Only Devraj being in this A
appeal, we need to confine our discussion with regard to the evidence
against Devraj only and as to whether the courts below on valid materials
and evidence were justified in convicting Devraj.
8. We have heard Shri Akshat Shrivastava, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Shri C.D. Singh, learned Additional B
Advocate General for the State.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal
contended that the courts below have relied on three eye-witnesses
namely PW.8-Ratan Singh, PW.13-Shivlochan and PW.16- Ajar Das.
PW.13-Shivlochan and PW.16-Ajar Das having been declared hostile c
witnesses, their evidence could not have been relied and PW.8-Ratan
Singh, another eye-witness having not stated that Devraj had assaulted
the deceased hence there was no evidence worth name to convict the
accused-Devraj. It is further contended that even the eye-witnesses,
PW.13 and PW.16 had only stated that they have heard the voice of
Devraj, the prosecution ought to have proved that witnesses had D
recognised the voice of Devraj and Devi Prasad. The witnesses have
only stated that Devraj had assaulted Devi Prasad@ Prachar by Danda.
It has not been proved that injury by Danda, if any, was sufficientto kill
Devi Prasad. The Doctor in his evidence has stated that injuries which
were sustained by Devi Prasad could be possible by an accident. Thus, E
the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was Devraj
who killed Devi Prasad @ Prachar. There was contradiction between
the statements of eye-witnesses, which has not been adverted to by the
courts below.
I 0. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State F
supporting the judgment of courts below contended that incriminating
evidence on the record are sufficient to convict the accused-Devraj. All
the eye-witnesses have proved the presence of accused-Devraj. The
evidence of PW.13 and PW. 16 was wholly reliable and even if they
were declared hostile witnesses their examination-in-chiefand the cross-
examination does not in any manner weaken the evidentiary value of G
their evidence that Devraj assaulted Devi Prasad on the late evening of
26th June, 2006. Several witnesses have testified that there was land
dispute between deceased-Devi Prasad and Devraj and there being
animosity between Devi Prasad and Devraj there was a motive to kill
the deceased. The judgment of the Trial Court is based on correct H
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R.
A appreciation of evidence. The High Court also having examined the
statements of witnesses and having come to the conclusion that there
was sufficient material on record to convict Devraj there is no ground
for interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article
136 of the Constitution oflndia. It is well settled that this Court shall not
reappraise the evidence and interfere with concurrent findings of facts
B
recorded by the courts below which are sufficient for upholding the
conviction of the accused.
11. We have considered the arguments made by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and perused the records. The original records
of the Trial Court produced before us including the statements of
c witnesses have also been perused by us.
12. ln the present case the deceased-Devi Prasad was going along
with Ratan Guruji from his house on a motorcycle on Panchayat Road
at about 8 p.m. Deceased left his house on a motorcycle with Ratan
Singh Guruji as pillion rider for dropping Ratan Singh at village Chendra.
D On the Panchayat Road near pakkar tree, the deceased was intercepted
and was asked to stop the motorcycle by five persons. The quarrel took
place between the deceased and his interceptors. The witnesses have
specially mentioned that Devraj and Dinda@ Deenanath were present
on the spot and Devraj hit and gave lathi blows on deceased. The
E witnesses who saw the deceased being assaulted are Ratan Guruji,
Shivlochan and Ajar Das. It is useful to re-capitulate the statements of
the above eye-witnesses. Ratan Singh-PW.8 has stated that he had gone
to Devi Prasad's house and after 8 p.m. he along with Devi Prasad left
his house on a motorcycle and as soon as they reached at some distance
from his house five persons were standing near the pakkar tree. Those
F persons got the vehicle stopped. Dinda came towards him (Ratan Guruji),
he was having a torch and switched on the torch. In the meanwhile, a
person ran from back side with a stick and spoke "kill him, what are you
looking' and he gave stick blow to Devi Prasad. On receiving injury
Devi Prasad ran towards back side crying "save save". Ratan Singh
G further stated that Shivlochan came on the spot and told him to come
with him as there was risk there. PW.8-Ratan Singh further stated that
there was a land dispute between Devi Prasad and Dev Raj.
13. Shivlochan-PW.13 is a witness whose house is situated near
the place where Devi Prasad was stopped. The Exhibit No.P.7 which is
a site plan prepared at the spot clearly indicates the house ofShivlochan
H
DEVRAJ v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 329
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
is at indication mark No.5. Shivlochan in his statement has stated that he A
knew both the accused-Devraj and deceased-Devi Prasad. Shivlochan
belongs to the same village Sayar Rai of which accused and deceased
belonged. In examination-in-chief, Shivlochan stated that he was returning
to his house from his sister's house when he saw the deceased-Devi
Prasad near pakkartree. Devraj came from the front and some dialogues
B
entered between them. Thereafter, Devraj assaulted Devi Prasad by
wood or stone. Thereafter, Devi Prasad started running. The witness
was cross·examined on behalf of the accused and in his cross-examination
he stated that he heard the voice of Devraj who was saying "Maro Sale
Ko" and it was Devraj who hit the Devi Prasad@ Prachar and Prachar
shouted "Bachao Bachao" which he heard. c
14. Another eye-witness PW.16-Ajar Das has been examined by
the prosecution. The house of Ajar Das is also near to the scene of
occurrence which is shown in Exhibit No.P-7 as indication mark 8. Ajar
Das stated that he knew the deceased and the accused. Deceased Devi
Prasad was cousin brother of Devraj and Dinda @ Deenanath. The D
quarrel had earlier taken place between Devi Prasad and Devraj. He
was returning to his house from village Gangapur and when he was
going through Panchayat Road adjoining pakkar tree near Jam tree
accused Devi Prasad had given three lathi blows to Devi Prasad. Accused
Devraj told Shivlochan that he should run away' otherwise he will also be
assaulted oil which he ran away. The prosecution took permission of E
the Court for asking question after declaring the witness as hostile. On
which the witness again stated that he has forbidden Devraj from beating
Devi Prasad. He further stated that he had also seen that while beating
Devi Prasad, Devraj was saying that he has been tortured throughout
life. Devraj and Dinda had beaten the deceased in the night and the F
dead body of Devi Parasad was found below the Rakhet Pulia in the
_morning. He further stated that due to land dispute between Devi Prasad
and Devraj and Dinda, they entered into "marpeet". 1n the cross-
examination he stated that he has seen accused-Devraj giving three
lathi blows. However, he does not know to whom the blows were given
since it was dark. There is overwhelming evidence on the record to G
prove the land dispute between Devraj, Dinda with Devi Prasad-
deceased.
15. Anita Bai-PW.7 wife of the deceased, Ratan Singh-PW.8,
Shivlochan-PW.13, Shivram-PW.18,Ram Kewal-PW.3 and Narayan
Prasad-PW.! 0 all had stated that there was a land dispute between the H
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 3 S.C.R.
A parties. Witness PW. I 0-Narayan Prasad had also stated that with regard
to the land dispute the leg ofDevraj was broken and there was animosity
between Devi Prasad and accused-Devraj and Dinda. The arguments
which have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that
PW.13 and PW.16 having been declared as hostile witnesses their
evidence ought not to have been relied by the courts below more so
B
when Ratan Singh another eye-witness does not say that deceased Devi
Prasad was assaulted by Devraj. At this juncture it is relevant to examine
the question as to what extent evidence of hostile witnesses can be
relied by the Court while recording conviction.
16. In a three-Judge bench judgment of this Court in Blwgwan
c Singh v. State of Harymw, (1976) 1 SCC 389, the witness Jagat
Singh was declared hostile. The appellant was convicted under Section
165A IPC. It was contended that the whole case is destroyed since the
witness was declared as hostile. In the aforesaid decision the Court
held thatthere is no legal bar to base a conviction upon his testimony if
D corroborated by other reliable evidence. Following was stated 111
paragraph 8 :
"8. We have carefully perused the evidence of Jagat
Singh. who was examined in the trial after more than a
year of detection of the case. The prosecution could have
E even avoided requesting for permission to cross-examine
the witness uiider Section 154 of the Evidence Act. But the
fact that the court gave permission to the prosecutor to
cross-examine his own witness, thus characterising him as,
what is described as a hostile witness, does not completely
efface his evidence. The evidence remains admissible in
F the trial and there is no legal bar to base a conviction
upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable
evidence. We are satisfied in this case that the evidence of
Jagat Singh, but for whose prompt assistance the case
would not have seen the light of day and whose statement
G had immediately been recorded by the D.S.P., is amply
corroborated by other evidence mentioned above to inspire
confidence in his testimony. Apart from that the fact of
recovery of the gold coins in the pocket of the appellant
gave a seal of.finality to the truth of the charge against
the appellant. If Jagat Singh had accepted the bribe he
H would have been guilty under Section 161 IPC. There is,
DEVRAJ v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 331
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
therefore, clear abetment by the appellant of the offence A
under Section 161 !PC and the ingredients of Section 165-
A !PC are established against him. "
17. Another judgment which needs to be noted is Khujji v. St(lte
of M.P., (1991) 3 SCC 627. This Court in the above case held that
merely because a witness was declared hostile, his entire evidence cannot B
be treated as effaced from the record,his testimony, to the extent found
reliable, can be acted upon. In paragraph 6 following was observed:
"6...... The evidence of PW 3 Kishan Lal and PW 4 Ramesh
came to be rejected by the trial court because they were
declared hostile to the prosecution by the learned Public c
Prosecutor as they refused to identify the appellant and
his companions in the dock as the assailants of the
deceased. But counsel for the State is right when he submits
that the evidence of a witness, declared hostile, is not
wholly effaced from the record and that part of the evidence
which is othenvise acceptable can be acted upon. It seems D
to be well settled by the decisions of this Court- Bhagwan
r/9 7 6 1 sec 389 ·
Sin~h v. State of Haryana, ' ~ , Rabindra Kumar
1976 233
Dey v. Stale of Orissq/ ; ./ sec and Syad Akbar v.
-· · fl9oo 1 sec 30
State of Karnataka, ~ ' - that the evidence of a
prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely E
because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and
cross-examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot
be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether
but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is
found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof .... "
F
18. The above propositions have again been reiterated by this
Court in Vi11od Kum(lr vs. State of P1111jab, (2015) 3 SCC 220, where
in paragraph 31 following has been stated:
"31. The next aspect which requires to be adverted to
is whether testimony of a hostile evidence that has come G
on record should be relied upon or not. Mr. Jain, learned
senior counsel for the appellant would contend that as
PW-7 has totally resiled in his cross-examination, his
evidence is to be discarded in toto. On a perusal of the
testimony of the said witness, it is evincible that in
examination-in-chief, he has supported the prosecution H
332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R.
A story in entirety and in the cross-examination he has taken
the path of prevarication. In Blwgwm1 Singh V. State of
Haryana· 0976J 1 sec 389 . it has been laid doll'n that even
if a witness is characterized has a hostile witness, his
evidence is not completely effaced. The said evidence
remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to
B
base a conviction upon his testimony. if corroborated by
other reliable evidence. In Klwji@Surendra Tiwari V. State
of Madhya Pradesh•n 99 i; 3 sec 627 . the Court after
referring to the authorities in Blzagwan Singh (supra).
Rabindra Kumar Dey V. State of Orissa,( 1976J ./sec 233 and
c Syad Akbar V. State of Kamataka•n 9811J 1 sec 311 . opined
that the e-vidence of such a witness cannot be effaced or
washed off the record altogether, but the same can be
accepted to the extent it is found to be dependable on a
careful scrutiny thereof "
D 19. The evidence of a witness who has been declared hostile can
be relied if there are some other material on the basis of which said
evidence can be corroborated. More so, that part of evidence of a witness
as contained in examination-in-chief, which remains unshaken even after
cross-examination, is fully reliable even though the witness has been
E
declared hostile.
20. It is relevant to note that the trial began against six accused
persons. Shivlochan-PW.13 in his examination-in-chief took the name
of Devraj alone who was stated to have assaulted Devi Prasad.
Shivlochan did not mention in his examination-in-chiefaboutthe presence
F of other accused which may be a reason for the prosecution to get the
witness declared as hostile. It is, however, relevant to note that even in
the cross-examination the witness repeated that he heard Devraj saying
"Maro Sale Ko" who had assaulted Devi Prasad and Devi Prasad @
Prachar cried "Bachao Bachao". The factum of assault by Devraj was
throughout maintained by the witness. Thus, even though witness was
G declared as hostile witness his evidence so far as the role of Devraj is
unshaken. Similarly, evidence of Ajar Das-PW.16, where in his
examination-in-chief he stated that accused Devraj gave three lathi blows
to Devi Prasad which was seen by him. The witness fu1ther stated that
Devraj threatened him to run away otherwise he shall also be assaulted.
H Even after the witness was declared hostile he maintained his stand that
DEVRAJ v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 333
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
he forbidden Devraj from assaulting Devi Prasad. He further stated that A
he saw Devraj and Dinda assaulting Devi Prasad in the night and on the
next day the dead body was found below Rakhet Pulia. The witness
further stated that due to land dispute Devraj and Dinda had assaulted ·
Devi Prasad. In cross-examination he voluntarily stated that he had seen
the accused giving three lathi blows. Further, he stated that he did not
B
see that whom he has beaten because it was dark. The statement in
cross-examination in no manner dilute the value of the evidence. It was
Devi Prasad who received injury whose dead body was found next day
morning. The statement that it was Devraj who gave three lathi blows
obviously referred to lathi blow to Devi Prasad-deceased. Thus, we
conclude that in spite of witnesses PW.13 and PW.16 having been c
declared as hostile witnesses their evidence that Devraj assaulted Devi
Prasad is unshaken and has rightly been relied by the com1s below in
recording conviction.
21. As noted above Ratan Guruji was pillion rider along with
deceased-Devi Prasad and after they proceeded from the house of Devi D
Prasad on the motorcycle after some distance near pakkar tree they
were stopped by five persons. The vehicle was got stopped by those
persons they asked as to who is sitting behind, upon this Devi Prasad
said that Ratan Guruj i of Chandra was sitting. Then Dinda came towards
them having a torch with him. Ratan Guruj i stated that one person came
from behind with geda and shouted "maro, kya dekh rahe ho" and he E
assaulted Devi Prasad with geda. Devi Prasad on being assaulted ran
towards back side and shouted "bachao bachao". Thus, statement of
Ratan Guruj i of assault on Devi Prasad when read with the evidence of
PW.13 and PW.16 clearly indicates tli ... 1 it was Devraj who had assaulted
Devi Prasad which caused death of the deceased. F
22. Learned coun:;el for the appellant has further contended that
injury given by danda cannot be said to be sufficient for death of a
person and there is no evidence to indicate that the injury caused by
Devraj was sufficient for death. He further submitted that Dr. K.P.
Vishwakarma-PW.20, in his statement stated that injuries which were
G
found in the person of Devi Prasad-deceased could have been received
in an accident. We have gone through the statement of Dr. K.P.
Vishwakarma-PW.20 and the post111011em report. The Doctor-PW.20
. in his statement after referring to the injuries received by the deceased
fiasclearly stated that only some of the injuries could have been caused
by accident. H
334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R. ·
A 23. Dr. K.P. Vishwakarma in his statement has stated that the
cause of death is head injury caused to the deceased. Thus, there is
Doctor's evidence that all the injuries which were found on the person
of the deceased could not have been caused due to the accident that is
falling below Rakhet Pulia.
B 24. There being clear evidence of stopping of the motorcycle near
pakkar tree and ensuing quarrel and assault on Devraj the theory of
accident as sought to be suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant
is wholly unreliable. The details in the Pandmama of the dead body and
position of the dead body as stated.by Anup Shai Rajwade, Inspector of
Police-PW.11, in his statement completely bely the theory of accident.
c Jn the examination-in-chief he stated about the injuries, further stated
that in between both the legs, between the thigh one white bottle of one
litre having half bottle of liquor was kept and at a distance of 4 ft. the
motorcycle was there key of which was put on a stone. He further
stated that motorcycle was not damaged since only back light was
D damaged which indicates that motorcycle was brought and thrown in
the water. The manner in which liquor bottle was kept between the thigh
of dead body and glass of back light of the motorcycle alone being
damaged does not support the theory of accident. Thus, there are more
than one reasons for rejecting the theory of accident and there was
evidence to prove that the deceased was assaulted and murdered and
E thereafter body and the motorcycle was brought and put below the Pu lia.
Both Trial Court and the High Court have referred to and relied on
sufficient evidence for convicting the accused. We, ourselves after going
through the evidence relied on by the courts below for convicting the
accused, are of the opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved
F beyond reasonable doubt that it was accused who had caused homicidal
death of the deceased.
25. We are also conscious that the jurisdiction which this Court
exercises under Article 136 has its own self-imposed restrictions. It is
sufficient to refer to this Court's decision reported in Ganga Kumar
G Srivastava v. State of Bihar, (2005) 6 SCC 211, where this Court
after referring to various decisions has laid down certain principles for
exercising the power of this Court under Atticle 136. It is useful to refer
to paragraph 10 of the judgment, which is :
"10. From the aforesaid series of decisions of this Court on
H the exercise of power of the Supreme Court under A1ticle 136
DEVRAJ v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 335
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
of the Constitution following principles emerge: A
(i) The powers of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution
are very wide but in criminal appeals this Court does riot
interfere with the concurrent findings of fact save in exceptional
circumstances.
(ii) It is open to this Court to interfere with the findings of fact B
given by the High Court, ifthe High Court has acted perversely
or otherwise improperly.
(iii) It is open to this Court to invoke the power under Article
136 only in very exceptional circumstances as and when a
question oflaw of general public importance arises or a decision c
shocks the conscience of the Court.
(iv) When the evidence adduced by the prosecution fell short
of the test ofreliability and acceptability and as such it is highly
unsafe to act upon it.
(v) Where the appreciation of evidence and finding is vitiated D
by any error of law of procedure or found contrary to the
principles ofnaturaljustice, errors ofrecord and misreading of
the evidence, or where the conclusions of the High Court are
manifestly perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on
record." .E
26. To the similar effect, another judgment of this Court reported
in Almnelu v. State, (2011) 2 SCC 385, where this Court held that
even though the powers of this Court under Article 136 are very wide,
but in criminal appeals, this Court would not interfere with the
concurrent findings of facts, save in very exceptional cases. Following
F
was laid down in paragraph 19:
"19. We have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties. Before we embark upon
an examination ofthe evidence, we may point out that even
though the powers of this Court under Article I 36 of the
G
Constitution are very wide, but in criminal appeals, this
Court would not interfere with the concurrent findings of
facts, save in very exceptional cases. Jn an appeal under
Article I 36 of the Constitution, this Court does not normally
appreciate the evidence by itself and go into the question
of credibility of witnesses. The assessment of the evidence H
336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R.
A by the High Court is accepted as final except where the
conclusions recorded by the High Court are ma11ifestly
perverse and unsupportable by the evidence on record.
Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, we have exami11ed
the findings recorded by the courts below. "
B 27. On the principles as laid down by this Court for exercise f
jurisdiction under Article 136, we are satisfied that the findings recorded
by the courts below from the evidence on record fully justify the conviction
of accused. The findings recorded by the cou11s below can neither be
said to be perverse nor contain any such ilie gal ity which may render the
findings not reliable.
c
28. We thus do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is
dismissed.
Devika Gujral Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search