VIJAY SHANKAR SHINDE & ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                     (2008) 1 S.C.R. 705


            VIJAY SHANKAR SHINDE & ORS.                           A
                              II.
                STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                  (Crl. A. No. 95 of 2008)
                    JANUARY 15, 2008
                                                                  B
    [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

     Penal Code, 1860 - 302, 307, 452 rlw s.34 - Family
dispute between parties, leading to fatal assault on one and
grievous hurt to other- Conviction ulss 302, 307, 452 rw s.34     c
by courts below - Correctness of - Held: Testimony of
eyewitnesses as also injured witness clear, cogent and credible
- Thus, order of courts below upl}eld - Evidence.
     According to the prosecution case, family dispute
and litigation between the family of the complainant-PW D
9 and the accused resulted in fatal assault on
complainant's husband and grievous hurt to PW-11. PW-
9 lodged a complaint. Investigations were carred out. Trial
court relying on the evidence of eye~witnesses-PWs 11,
12 and 13 as also PW-9, convicted and sentenced the E
accused under sections 302, 307 and 452 r/w s. 34 IPC.
High Court upheld the conviction and sentence. Hence
the present appeal.
     Dismissing the appeal, the Court
                                                           F
      HELD: 1.1. PWs 11, 12 and 13 were cross-examined
at length but nothing substantial could be elicited to
destroy the credibility of their version. Evidence of PWs
12 and 13 did not suffer from any deficiency. As a matter
of fact, the evidence of injured person who was examined G
as a witness lends more credence, because normally he
would not falsely implicate a person thereby protecting
the actual assailant. The Trial Court as well as the High
Court rightly placed reliance on the evidence of the eye-
witnesses and their evidence was clear and cogent. Thus,
                             705                          .rl
     706       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 1 S.C.R.


     the impugned judgment of the High Court does not suffer
                                                                         "'
A
     from any infirmity to warrant interference. (Paras 9, 10 and
     11 ). (708-A-C]
          CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
     No. 95 of 2008
B
          From the final Judgment and Order dated 21.9.2004 of
     the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Crl. A. No. 253/1999.     •           >.
                                                                                 1

           Deepa Mahajan and Bhaskar Y. Kulkarni for the Appellants.         •
c          Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the Respondent.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
           DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
           2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment passed by a
D Division Bench of Bombay High Court, dismissing the appeal
  filed by the appellants who were convicted by learned Additional
  Sessions Judge, Satara, for offences punishable under Sections
  302, 307, 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
  1860 (in short 'IPC'). For the first two offences each was
E sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine
  with default stipulation. For the offence relatable to Section 452
  IPC, each was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year
  and to pay a fine with default stipulation.

          3. Prosecution case which led to the trial of the appellants
F    was as follows:

         There was family feud between the family of the accused
  and the family of the complainant who were close relations. Suits
  are filed and suits were pending. On 10.10.1996, around 12.00
G p.m. Dattatraya one of the injured persons was assaulted by
  the accused persons and on being stopped by mother-in-law of
  Dattatraya accused ran away. Thereafter Tanaji (hereinafter                ~-·
  referred to as deceased) came home and took Dattatraya by
  rickshaw towards hospital. They were accosted at Gandhi
  Chowk by accused persons who broke the glass of rickshaw,
H·
                      VIJAY SHANKAR SHINDE & ORS. v.                       707
                    STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [PASAYAT, J.]

             turned down the rickshaw, pulled out the victims and assaulted       A
   -¥        them. This assault was witnessed by Jayashri, wife of Tanaji.
             She, therefore, filed a complaint before the police. Investigation
             was started and on completion of investigation, the accused
             persons were charged of having committed murder of the
             deceased Tanaji and grievous hurt to Dattatraya.                     B
                  4. In order to establish its version prosecution examined
        )'   18 witnesses. PWs. 11, 12 and 13 were stated to be eye-
" j-         witnesses in addition to PW9 who also claimed to have
             witnessed a part of the incidence.
                                                                                  c
                   5. The Trial Court accepted the prosecution version and
             held that the evidence of PWs. 11, 12 and 13 clearly establish
             the prosecution version. It was noted that PW 12 was injured in
             the incident.
                  6. Before the High Court it was submitted that there were       D
             contradictions and omissions falsifying the prosecution version.
  --f        The High Court did not accept the version and upheld the
             conviction and maintained their sentence.
                   7. In support of the appeal, leaned counsel for the
                                                                                  E
             appellants submitted that PW's 9 presence at the spot appears
             to be doubtful and in fact the Trial Court noted that she had not
             seen the actual incident but after learning about the occurrence
             she came to the place and her husband told her that it was the
             accused who had beaten him. It is also submitted that PW11
             had reason to falsely implicate the accused persons. Learned         F
             counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand supported
             the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the High Court.
                   8. Though the Trial Court observed that PWs 9 and 11 may
             have tried to exaggerate because former was the widow and
                                                                            G
             latter was injured victim, the evidence of PWs 12 and 13
.~           establish the prosecution version.
                   9. The Trial Court was not justified in holding that because
             PW11 was an injured witness he may have reason to falsely
             implicate the accused. However, as rightly observed by the Trial     H
    708      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 1 S.C.R.


A Court and the High Court, the evidence of PWs 12 and 13 does
  not suffer from any deficiency. PWs 11, 12 and 13 were cross-
  examined at length but nothing substantial could be elicited to
  destroy the credibility of their version. As a matter of fact, the
  evidence of injured person who is examined as a witness lends
B more credence, because normally he would not falsely implicate
  a person thereby protecting the actual assailant.
         10. The Trial Court as well as the High Court have rightly
    placed reliance on the evidence of the eye-witnesses and as
    noted above their evidence was clear and cogent.
c
         11. That being so, the impugned judgment of the High Court
    does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.
          12. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
D N.J.                                          Appeal dismissed.