Murder convictions arising from a group assault with swords and an air pistol were upheld. The Court accepted the eyewitness evidence, found unlawful assembly and common object established, and rejected the alibi defence. All connected appeals were dismissed, leaving the IPC and Arms Act convictions undisturbed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Judgment Reserved on 02.12.2022
Judgment Delivered on 12.12.2022
CRA No. 458 of 2020
Versus
CRA No. 167 of 2020
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
CRA No. 494 of 2020
---- Appellant
Versus
2
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters ---- Respondent
CRA No. 641 of 2020
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
| CRA No.458 of 2020 :- | ||
|---|---|---|
| For Sanni Tharwani | : | Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pranjal Agrawal & Ms Vidhi Agrawal, Advocates |
| For Sagar Tharwani | : | Mr. Devershi Thakur & Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocates |
| For Vishal Tharwani | : | Mr. Pranjal Agrawal & Mr. Vidhi Agrawal, Advocates |
| CRA No.167 of 2020 :- | ||
| For Lakhan Dhimar | : | Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate |
| CRA No.494 of 2020 :- | ||
| For Suraj Kartari | : | Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate |
| CRA No.641 of 2020 :- | ||
| For Sunil @ Machchhar @ L | allu | Mr. Manoj Paranjape, Advocate with Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate |
| For State | : | Mr. Raghvendra Verma, Govt. Advocate |
| For Objector in CRA No.167 of 2020 |
: | Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate |
3
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
CAV Judgment
Per Goutam Bhaduri, J.
| Conviction | Sentence |
|---|---|
| (Sa | nni Tharwani - A/1) |
| U/s. 148 of IPC | R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for 03 months. |
| U/s. 302/149 of IPC | R.I. for life and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for 03 months. |
| U/s. 25 (1) (1-B) (B) of Arms Act |
R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for 03 months. |
(Sagar Tharwani - A/5 & Vishal Tharwani - A/6)
| U/s. 148 of IPC | R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.500/-, |
|---|---|
| in default of payment of fine to further |
4
| CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters undergo S.I. for 03 months. |
|
|---|---|
| U/s. 302/149 of IPC | R.I. for life and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further |
| undergo S.I. for 03 months. |
4. CRA No.167/2020 is preferred by Lakhan Dhimar (A/2). He has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
| Conviction | Sentence |
|---|---|
| U/s. 148 of IPC | R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for 03 months. |
| U/s. 302/149 of IPC | R.I. for life and fine amount of Rs.5000/- |
| U/s. 25 (1) (1-B) (B) | R.I. for one year and fine amount of |
| of Arms Act | Rs.1000/- |
5. CRA No.494/2020 is preferred by Suraj Kartari (A/3). He has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
| Conviction | Sentence |
|---|---|
| U/s. 148 of IPC | R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for 03 months. |
| U/s. 302 /149 of IPC | R.I. for life and fine amount of Rs.5000/- |
| U/s. 25 (1) (1-B) (B) of Arms Act |
R.I. for one year and fine amount of Rs.1000/- |
5
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters
| Conviction | Sentence |
|---|---|
| U/s. 148 of IPC | R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for 03 months. |
| U/s. 302 /149 of IPC | R.I. for life and fine amount of Rs.5000/- |
| U/s. 25 (1) (1-B) (B) of Arms Act |
R.I. for one year and fine amount of Rs.1000/- |
| U/s 27 (1) of the Arms Act |
R.I. for three years and fine amount of Rs.3000/- |
Brief facts :
6
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters Sanni Tharwani (A/1) came with a sword and said to the deceased that he talks too much; abused him by filthy language saying that I will kill you and started assaulting the deceased by way of sword. At that time, Lakhan Dhimar (A/2) took out a gupti and started assaulting the deceased and along with him Suraj Kartari (A/3), Sunil @ Machchhar (A/4), Sagar Tharwani (A/5) and Vishal Tharwani (A/6) in furtherance to carry out object also started assaulting the deceased by way of sword and desi katta (pistol). By such assault, the deceased fell down on the spot. At that time, Sunil Talreja (A/4) chased the witness Akash Aagicha with a sword and out of fear, he started running away. Thereafter, after some time when Akash Aagicha (PW-9) went to the place of occurrence, he saw there that Amit (deceased) was seriously assaulted having injuries on his head, back, both arms and chest and blood was oozing out. Thereafter he called one Anil and while the deceased was taken to Hospital for treatment he succumbed to the injuries on the way.
7
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters hand and clothes of the deceased were seized. After a few days, he accused were arrested and the spot map was prepared. Thereafter, the articles so seized were sent for FSL.
Submission on behalf of Sanni Tharwani (A/1) :
8
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters more eyewitnesses namely; Jeetu Nandwani @ Balla (PW-5), cousin brother of the deceased; Sanni Nandwani (PW-15), who came after the incident; and Pinki Nagwani (PW-17) who made the statement that she saw the accused persons running from the spot but subsequently in Court became an eye-witness.
9
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters
10
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters
11
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters
apparent;
12
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters would submit that at the instance of Sanni Tharwani (A/1) sword was seized from graveyard (kabristan) of Sindhi Colony wherein two eyewitnesses namely; Mohd. Azim (PW-18) and Sandeep Dhansani (PW-19) have not fully supported the seizure;
13
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters placed before the Court, as the deceased was dead prior to 11.00 pm since he was brought dead at Apollo Hospital at 11 p.m. Neither the mobile was collected nor any call details were placed which draws inference that Akash Aagicha (PW-9) was not present on the spot at the time of incident;
14
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters
15
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters the matter of Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) and Others v State of Maharashtra {(2010) 13 SCC 657} learned counsel would submit that when no statement is made under Section 161 Cr.P.C., but it has been stated in the Court, there exists material contradiction, therefore, the same should not be accepted;
16
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters by the Supreme Court in the matter of Kaliram v State of Himachal Pradesh {(1973) 2 SCC 808}; and
Submission on behalf of Lakhan Dhimar (A/2) :
17
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters
Nagwani (PW-17);
18
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters cousin brother of the deceased and as per the statement, when he went to the incident everything had happened and no one was present except him, therefore, how the accused Lakhan can be inculpated is a serious flaw committed by the learned trial Court;
19
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters (A/2) has not been established and only evidence is recovery of weapon Bhujali vide Ex. P/26;
20
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters other person, therefore, all efforts have been made to shield the actual accused; and
Submission on behalf of Suraj Kartari (A/3) :
21
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters
Submission on behalf of Sunil @ Machchhar (A/4) :
22
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters
Advocate would submit that:-
23
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters bullet shot, as such, the recovery of air-pistol would be completely irrelevant;
24
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters Singh v State of M.P. {(1996) 8 SCC 205};
Submission on behalf of Vishal Tharwani (A/6) :
25
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters (PW-17), he would submit that this accused has been named by Pinki, based on which the trial Court convicted him;
26
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters first time in Court and as such it creates a doubt;
Submission on behalf of Sagar Tharwani (A/5) :
Submission on behalf of the State :
27
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters
28
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters appreciate and reconsider the evidence and observed that The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restrictions or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on question on facts and law. Therefore, with such proposition we would like to deliberate on the evidential value of facts and statements
adduced before the trial Court.
Discussion of evidence :
29
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters all started assaulting him. He further deposed that accused has assaulted Amit with sword and Sunil Talreja abused the witness and chased him threatening that he will not leave him alive, at that time he (P.W.9) started running and called and informed the incident to Shibu Khan, Shahbaj Hussain Faridi and his brother Anil Aagicha by mobile and while doing so he (P.W.9) has gone to a hidden place i.e., lane from where, he watched the entire incident when the accused were assaulting Amit Nandwani. He has deposed that the accused assaulted on head, back and hand of deceased and also fired gun shot on the abdomen and hand. He stated that he does not know who has fired the gun shot. Thereafter, the police came to the spot and the accused fled from the scene. Thereafter, Jeetu Nandwani (P.W.5) and Sanni Nandwani (P.W. 15) took the deceased to the District hospital in Police Van and from there looking to the serious condition of the injured victim, he was referred to Apollo Hospital and before entering into Apollo Hospital, the victim died.
30
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters Aagicha u/s 161 Cr.P.C., is marked as Ex.D-3. It has been argued in the Court statement, the time of incident has not been disclosed. It has been further argued that the police had information about the crime and how the police has reached to the spot has not been revealed. However, no plausible defence exists as to why within a short span of time all the accused were named in Merg and FIR.
Place of eyewitness not depicted in spot map
31
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters from a distance. A perusal of Ex.P-2 merg statement, FIR (Ex.P3) and 161 statement (Ex.D-3) recorded by the police shows the substantial incident and there is consistency in the statement. Therefore, merely because the position of the witness was not shown in map Ex.P.18, it cannot be considered as fatal to the prosecution case and the other evidence as also the circumstances are required to be examined.
24.With respect to presence of witness in the spot map/site plan, the Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Mohd. Parvej Abdul Kayuum (2019) 12 SCC 1 has observed that when witness is not shown in the spot map, the ocular evidence of the witness cannot be disregarded on the ground that he was not shown in the site plan or spot map. At paras 113 & 114, the Court held thus:
113 . With respect to not showing the presence at a particular spot of an eye-witness in the spot map, reliance has been placed by the prosecution on a decision of this Court in Tori Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1962 SC 399. With respect to the spot map, it has been observed hat it would be based on hearsay of witness. Spot map would be admissible so far as it indicates all that the Inspector saw himself at the spot. Any mark put on the spot map on the basis of statements made by the witness to the Inspector would be inadmissible in view of the clear provisions of Section 162 CrPC. This Court has observed thus : (SCC pp.400-01) Para 7) -
“7. We are of opinion that neither of these arguments has any force. Let us first take the contention that it was most unlikely that the deceased would be hit on that part of the body where the injury was actually received by him, if he was at the spot marked in Ext. Ka-9. The validity of this argument depends mainly on the spot which has
32
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters
been marked on the sketch-map, Ext. Ka-9 as the place where the deceased received his injuries. In the first place, the map itself is not to scale but is merely a rough sketch and therefore one cannot postulate that the spot marked on the map is in exact relation to the platform. In the second place, the mark on the sketch-map was put by the SubInspector who was obviously not an eyewitness to the incident. He could only have put it thereafter taking the statements of the eyewitnesses. The marking of the spot on the sketch map is really bringing on record the conclusion of the Sub Inspector on the basis of the statements made by the witnesses to him. This, in our opinion, would not be admissible in view of the provisions of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for it is in effect nothing more than the statement of the SubInspector that the eyewitnesses told him that the deceased was at such and such place at the time when he was hit. The sketch-map would be admissible so far as it indicates all that the SubInspector saw himself at the spot; but any mark put on the sketch-map based on the statements made by the witnesses to the Sub-Inspector would be inadmissible in view of the clear provisions of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as it will be no more than a statement made to the Police during investigation. We may in this connection refer to Bhagirathi Chowdhury v. King Emperor 1925 SCC OnLine Cal 91 : AIR 1926 Cal 550, where it was observed that placing of maps before the jury containing statements of witnesses or of information received by the investigating officer preparing the map from other persons was improper and that the investigating officer who made a map in a criminal case ought not to put anything more than what he had seen himself. The same view was expressed by the Calcutta High Court again in Ibra Akanda v. Emperor 1944 SCC OnLine Cal 12 : AIR 1244 Cal 339, where it was held that any information derived from witnesses during police investigation, and recorded in the index to a map, must be proved by the witnesses concerned and not by the investigating officer, and that if such information is sought to be proved by the evidence of the investigating officer, it would manifestly offend against Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
33
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters 114 . In Pratap Singh v. State of M.P (2005) 13 SCC 624 : it was held that even if the witnesses are not reflected in the site plan, that does not bar the prosecution to produce such witnesses during the trial. Since PW 55 has not been confronted with the site plan and no question had been asked to the witness, thus his ocular evidence cannot be discredited on the basis of the aforesaid omission”.
(Emphasis applied)
34
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters
the court is not supposed to give undue importance to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter, and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. In Karan Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2022) 6 SCC 52 the Supreme Court further reiterated that discrepancies or improvements which do not materially affect the case of prosecution and are significant cannot be made the basis for doubting the case of prosecution. Paras 40 & 41 are relevant and quoted below:
40. “In Kuriya v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 10 SCC 433, this Court held : ( SCC pp.447-48, Paras 30-32) :
“30 . This Court has repeatedly taken the view that the discrepancies or improvements which do not materially affect the case of the prosecution and are insignificant cannot be made the basis for doubting the case of the prosecution. The courts may not concentrate too much on such discrepancies or improvements. The purpose is to primarily and clearly sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. Where it does not affect the core of the prosecution case, such discrepancy should not be attached undue significance. The normal course of human conduct would be that while narrating a particular incident, there may occur minor discrepancies. Such discrepancies may even in law render credential to the depositions. The improvements or variations must essentially relate to the material particulars of the prosecution case. The alleged improvements and variations must be shown with respect to material particulars of the case and the occurrence. Every such improvement, not directly related to the occurrence, is not a ground to doubt the testimony of a witness. The credibility of a definite circumstance of the prosecution case cannot be weakened with
35
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters
reference to such minor or insignificant improvements. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgments of this Court in Kathi Bharat Vajsur v. State of Gujarat, (2012) 5 SCC 724; Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 8 SCC 457; Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 2 SCC 205 and Sukhchain Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) 5 SCC 100 .
31. What is to be seen next is whether the version presented in the Court was substantially similar to what was said during the investigation. It is only when exaggeration fundamentally changes the nature of the case, the Court has to consider whether the witness was stating the truth or not. [Ref. Sunil Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)] 2003 11 SCC 367.
32. These are variations which would not amount to any serious consequences. The Court has to accept the normal conduct of a person. The witness who is watching the murder of a person being brutally beaten by 15 persons can hardly be expected to state a minute by minute description of the event. Everybody, and more particularly a person who is known to or is related to the deceased, would give all his attention to take steps to prevent the assault on the victim and then to make every effort to provide him with the medical aid and inform the police. The statements which are recorded immediately upon the incident would have to be given a little leeway with regard to the statements being made and recorded with utmost exactitude. It is a settled principle of law that every improvement or variation cannot be treated as an attempt to falsely implicate the accused by the witness. The approach of the court has to be reasonable and practicable. Reference in this regard can be made to Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana 2010 12 SCC 350 and Shivlal v. State of Chhattisgarh 2011 9 SCC 561 ”
36
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters
41. In Shyamal Ghosh v. State of W.B., 2012 7 SCC 646 this Court held : (SCC pp. 666-67, paras 46 & 49)
“46. Then, it was argued that there are certain discrepancies and contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses inasmuch as these witnesses have given different timing as to when they had seen the scuffling and strangulation of the deceased by the accused.… Undoubtedly, some minor discrepancies or variations are traceable in the statements of these witnesses. But what the Court has to see is whether these variations are material and affect the case of the prosecution substantially. Every variation may not be enough to adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
Therefore, the statement of P.W.9 and the incident which goes to the heart of matter remains unshaken by Merg Ex.P-2 and FIR Ex.P-3 which were reported within a short span of time and similarly the statement was recorded immediately after the incident on 04.8.2018 within one hour of time. So while the statement of this witness is evaluated, in our opinion, he appears to be trust-worthy.
37
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters and the occurrence of incident is of 04th August, 2018 night at 10.30 to 11.00 and she used to walk at that time. She has deposed that on the date of incident at night she dropped her niece and came back to her house. At that time, when she was sitting in the house, she heard the voice from outside her house and after coming out, she saw that all the six accused were assaulting Amit Nandwani. She started shouting that why they are assaulting Amit Nandwani. She has further deposed that victim was assaulted at Sindhu Vidya Mandir near Panchayat Bhawan and thereafter, Amit Nandwani tried to save himself and rushed towards her for his rescue. At that time, all the accused assaulted Amit Nandwani with weapons and got him fell down. In such situation, injured Amit came near her house where the accused also came with weapons due to which she became scared. She has further categorically deposed that gun shot was fired by accused Sunil. Thereafter she called the Ambulance and Police. She has stated that subsequently police had recorded her statement in Police Station.
38
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters after the occurrence who saw the incident, the delay in recording the statement casts a serious doubt about their being eyewitnesses to the occurrence. It may suggest that the IO had deliberately marked the timings for the sake their convenience with a view to give a shape to the case and introduce the eyewitnesses.
by witness Pinki (P.W.17). In her statement (Ex.D-5) u/s 161 Cr.P.C., she has only stated that she saw 3 accused were fleeing away. Likewise, another submission is made that Doctor P.W.16 Manoj Jaiswal who conducted the autopsy test has not stated any injury caused by bullet shots in his PM report Ex.P-8. Therefore, the ocular evidence is not supported by the medical evidence and her statement is wrong. Reliance was placed in State of Uttarakhand Vs. Darshan Singh (2020) 12 SCC 605 to contend that there was an improvement in the statement of P.W.17 and the oral evidence is negated by the medical evidence.
(i) Deep incised wound 14cm x 3cm deep cutted facial bone (maxilla) starting from and below eye extends upto temporal.
(ii) Deep incised wound 11 x 3 x deep cutted mid fronto parietal bone obliquely placed.
39
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters
(iii) Deep incised wound 8 x 3 x deep cutted left parietal bone.
(iv) Deep incised piece of scalp with tag of skin and skull bone 8 x 7 cm x deep cut brain matter.
(v) Palm outer aspect destroyed with missing and broken piece approx 5 x 3 cm.
(vi) Incised wound in between right index finger and thumb.
(vii) Skin and inter-costal membrane with outer below nipple (left) wounded ¾ x ¼ cm.
(viii) Few abrasion over thighs and lower leg.
(ix) Contusion over midarm right 3 ½ x 1 ½ cm with punctured wound nearby.
(x) Contusion X shaped deltoid region (left)
(xi) Abrasions back of index, middle and ring finger (left)
7 SCC 421 held thus :
37. In State of U.P. v. Hari Chand (2009) 13 SCC 542 this Court reiterated the aforementioned position of law : (SCC p.545, Para 1
“13. … In any even unless the oral evidence is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, it has primacy.”
38. Thus, the position of law in such a case of contradiction between medical and ocular evidence can be crystalised to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-a-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes
40
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved. (Vide Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of M.P (2010) 10 SCC 259)
“43. In Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. (2010) 10 SCC 259 , this Court discussed elaborately the case law on the subject of conflict between medical evidence and ocular evidence: (SCC pp. 272-74, paras 32-39)
“Medical evidence versus ocular evidence
‘15. The opinion given by a medical witness need not be the last word on the subject. Such an opinion shall be tested by the court. If the opinion is bereft of logic or objectivity, the court is not obliged to go by that opinion. After all opinion is what is formed in the mind of a person regarding a fact situation. If one doctor forms one opinion and another doctor forms a different opinion on the same facts it is
41
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters
open to the Judge to adopt the view which is more objective or probable. Similarly if the opinion given by one doctor is not consistent with probability the court has no liability to go by that opinion merely because it is said by the doctor. Of course, due weight must be given to opinions given by persons who are experts in the particular subject.’
‘it has to be noted that it would be erroneous to accord undue primacy to the hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the eyewitnesses’ account which had to be tested independently and not treated as the “variable” keeping the medical evidence as the “constant”.’
35 . Where the eyewitnesses’ account is found credible and trustworthy, a medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities cannot be accepted as conclusive. The eyewitnesses’ account requires a careful independent assessment and evaluation for its credibility, which should not be adversely prejudged on the basis of any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility.
42
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters
[Vide Thaman Kumar v. State (UT of Chandigarh) (2003) 6 SCC 380 and Krishnan v. State (2003) 7 SCC 56 at SCC pp. 62-63, para 21.]
‘13. Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eyewitnesses. Unless, however, the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eyewitnesses, the testimony of the eyewitnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence.’
‘13. … In any event unless the oral evidence is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, it has primacy.’
43
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters
evidence and ocular evidence can be crystallised to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved.”
(emphasis in original)
(2003) 12 SCC 606 has held as under :
“17. So far as the alleged variance between the medical evidence and ocular evidence is concerned, it is trite law that oral evidence has to get primacy and medical evidence is basically opinionative. It is only when the medical evidence specifically rules out the injury as is claimed to have been inflicted as per the oral testimony, then only in a given case the court has to draw adverse inference.”
(2002) 7 SCC 536 held as under:
“8. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, on the point that when there is conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence, the prosecution case should not be accepted, are of no held to him in this case. On deeper scrutiny of the evidence as a whole, it is not possible to throw out the prosecution case as either false or unreliable on the mere statement of the doctor that injuries found on the deceased could not be caused by a sharp-edged weapon. This statement cannot be taken in isolation and without reference to the other statement of the doctor that the injuries could be caused by Ext.P-9 Axe to disbelieve the evidence of the eye-witnesses. From the evidence available in this case, the possibility of the blunt head of the Axe or the stick portion coming in contact with the head of the deceased cannot be ruled out. These decisions cited
44
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters by the learned counsel for the appellant are related to those cases where the medical evidence and the version of the eyewitnesses could not be reconciled or that the account given by the eye-witnesses as to the incident was highly or patently improbable and totally inconsistent with the medical evidence having regard to the facts of those cases and as such their evidence could not be believed.”
Thus merely if the wound has not properly been written or described in the report, the ocular evidence cannot be discarded.
45
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters hand and 'I' skin of chest were affirmative with presence of 'lead metal. Therefore, the ocular statement of witnesses that apart from sword injury, bullet fire shots were made is affirmed by FSL, hence the medical evidence cannot be given a preference.
46
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters
“13..... '51. …. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in every thing) has not received general acceptance. …. nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of the rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded.”
“37. Another reason for which the High Court disbelieved the prosecution story is the improvement made by P.W.2 in the story of beheading of the deceased. We find it difficult to agree with this conclusion of the High Court in the light of the judgment of this Court in Leela Ram v. State of Haryana (1999) 9 SCC 52 wherein it was observed: (SCC p.534, para 12)
47
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters exaggerated account. The court can sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. Total repulsion of the evidence is unnecessary. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. If this element is satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the court to accept the stated evidence though not however in the absence of the same.”
“38. … Experience shows that witnesses do exaggerate and this Court has taken note of such exaggeration made by the witnesses and held that on account of embellishments, evidence of witnesses need not be discarded if it is corroborated on material aspects by the other evidence on record.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Therefore the statements of P.W.9 Akash Aagicha and P.W. 17 Pinki Nagwani cannot be discarded as a whole that being against the medical evidence especially when the statement of Akash Aagachi was recorded immediately after the occurrence. With respect to delay in recording the statement of Pinki,, it may happen that because of gruesome incident in her presence, she had time to recover from the shock of the incident and compose herself and therefore, if her statement was recorded at a later stage, the witness cannot be blamed. Further she being an eye witness and her presence at the scene being an inmate of the house situated just in front of place of occurrence, her evidence is trust-worthy.
48
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters
49
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters from variance of time, this witness maintained the stand that the accused started fleeing after seeing the Police Vehicle. In examination-in-chief before the Court, he deposed that the incident occurred between 10.30 p.m. to 11.00 p.m and he received a call at 11.00 p.m., and only thereafter, went to the spot. So except certain time difference of half-an-hour, no major contradiction has come on record. The incident took place in a short span of time and it is not expected that each of the prosecution witness will watch the time minute-to-minute and incidentally in a given case Watches may not match with each other but those discrepancies will not discard the credibility of witnesses.
50
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters witness” has been defined by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Rojali Ali v. State of Assam, reported in (2019) 19 SCC 567 . Therefore, the mechanical rejection of testimonies of P.W.5 Jeetu Nandwani and P.W.9 Akash Aagicha who are related to the deceased, is not permissible. However, the evidence of such witnesses should be examined minutely.
Supp (1) SCC 363 has held as under :
“8.........It goes saying that enmity is a double edged weapon which cuts both ways. It may constitute a motive for the commission of crime and at the same time, it may also provide a motive for false implication.......
SCC 168 has held thus :
“14. …..The fact that there was previous enmity between the complainant's party and the rival group of which the accused happen to be members or sympathisers is a factor that need to be taken as adverse to the prosecution. Enmity is a double-edged weapon. It was because of the said enmity that the victim was assaulted while he was on his way to attend the function. The existence of such enmity lends support to the prosecution case rather than demolish the same.......”
51
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters Mahesh v. State of Maharashtra (2008) 13 SCC 271 held thus:
54. This Court in Salim Sahab v. State of M.P. held that : (SCC pp 701 & 703, Paras 11 & 14-15 )
“11 ....... [mere relationship] is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyze evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.”
'But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. ….. The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct.'
15. To the same effect are the decisions in State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh; Lehna v. State of Haryana and Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa. ”
52
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters be registered and this witness has supported in his deposition the contents of the complaint to some extent. It is well settled that in such cases many a time, independent witnesses do not come forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. There are many reasons that persons sometimes are not inclined to become witnesses in the case for a variety of reasons. It is well settled that merely because the witnesses examined by the prosecution are relatives of the victim, that fact by itself will not be sufficient to discard and discredit the evidence of the relative witnesses, if otherwise they are found to be truthful witnesses and rule of caution is that the evidence of the relative witnesses has to be reliable evidence which has to be accepted after deep and thorough Scrutiny.”
47. The Supreme Court in the case of Nagarjit Ahir Vs State of
Bihar reported in (2005) 10 SCC 369 has held as under:
12. It was then submitted that inspite of the fact that a large number of persons had assembled at the bank of the river at the time of occurrence, the witnesses examined are only those who are members of the family of the deceased or in some manner connected with him. We cannot lose sight of the fact that four of such witnesses are injured witnesses and, therefore, in absence of strong reasons, we cannot discard their testimony. The fact that they are related to the deceased is the reason why they were attacked by the appellants. Moreover, in such situations though many people may have seen the occurrence, it may not be possible for the prosecution to examine each one of them. In fact, there is evidence on record to suggest that when the occurrence took place, people started running helter-skelter. In such a situation it would be indeed difficult to find out the other persons who had witnessed the occurrence. In any event, we have the evidence of as many as 7 witnesses, 4 of them injured, whose evidence has been found to be reliable by the courts below, and we find no reason to take a different view.
U.P., (2016) 4 SCC 357 held thus :
“29. As far as the non-examination of any other independent witness is concerned, there is no doubt that the prosecution has not been able to produce any
53
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters independent witness. But, the prosecution case cannot be doubted on this ground alone. In these days, civilisd people are generally insensitive to come forward to give any statement in respect of any criminal offence. Unless it is inevitable, people normally keep away from the Court as they find it distressing and stressful. Though this kind of human behaviour is indeed unfortunate, but it is a normal phenomena. We cannot ignore this handicap of the investigating agency in discharging their duty. We cannot derail the entire case on the mere ground of absence of independent witness as long as the evidence of the eyewitness, though interested, is trustworthy.”
54
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters Jaiswal (P.W.16) has stated that after seizure no blood stains were found on the knife. The ballistic report Ex.P-1 about Air Pistol shows that the trigger action was not working but further examination was proposed. When the said Air Pistol was sent for examination to FSL by Ex.P-56, it was found that the Pistol was working. Though in the memorandum, the recovery was stated to be at Mahamaya Mandir stand, but it was recovered near Ratanpur Majar, that would not be helpful to the accused as no evidence exists that those areas are far apart.
55
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters though much emphasis is given that recovery of sword and knife was from Sindhi colony house whereas in memorandum, it was disclosed to be at graveyard, but in statements of seizure witnesses P.W.18 and P.W.19 consistency remains about the place of recovery of weapon i.e., Sindhi colony wherein graveyard situates. Likewise, recovery of pistol from Ratanpur stand or Majar do not constitute a major discrepancies.
56
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters in between the accused-appellants and deceased. On the fateful day, the deceased was called at about 10.30 or 11.00 p.m,, near Panchayat Bhawan at Sindhi Colony. As per the statement of P.W.9, Akash Agachi which was corroborated by the statement of P.W.17 Pinki Nagwani who is resident of the same vicinity, all the accused assaulted the deceased with deadly weapons and also fired gun shots. In the spot map, it shows that near the Panchayat Bhawan where the deceased was called, it is an office premises. obviously the Office premises of Panchayat Bhawan would remain secluded at 10.30 p.m. in the night . When the deceased who reached there was assaulted by the appellants/accused, it can be obviously inferred that at such odd hours if some people have gathered and assembled at the outside public/government office, naturally it is an uncommon thing. The eye-witnesses have supported the presence of all the accused. The factum of not causing injury would not be relevant when the accused is roped in with the aid of Section 149 IPC. The relevant question to be examined by the Court is whether the accused were members of unlawful assembly who gathered at Panchayat Bhawan at odd hours with an intention to cause injury or not.
57
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters
assembly, and ( 2 ) such offence must have been committed in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or must be such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed. Once the court finds that these two ingredients are fulfilled, every person, who at the time of committing that offence was a member of the assembly has to be held guilty of that offence. After such a finding, it would not be open to the court to see as to who actually did the offensive act nor would it be open to the court to require the prosecution to prove which of the members did which of the offensive acts. Whenever a court convicts any person of an offence with the aid of Section 149, a clear finding regarding the common object of the assembly must be given and the evidence discussed must show not only the nature of the common object but that in pursuance of such common object the offence was committed. There is no manner of doubt that before recording the conviction under Section 149 IPC, the essential ingredients of Section 149 IPC must be established.
56. Further in Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel v. Ravibhai Dudabhai
Patel (2018) 7 SCC 743 , the Supreme Court has held as under :
24. To understand the true scope and amplitude of Section 149 IPC it is necessary to examine the scheme of Chapter VIII (Sections 141 to 160) IPC which is titled “Of the offences against the public tranquility”. Sections 141 to 158 deal with offences committed collectively by a group of 5 or more individuals.
25. Section 141 IPC declares an assembly of five or more persons to be an “unlawful assembly” if the common object of such assembly is to achieve any one of the five objects enumerated in the said section. One of the enumerated objects is to commit any offence. “The words falling under Section 141, clause third “or other offence” cannot be restricted to mean only minor offences of
58
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters
trespass or mischief. These words cover all offences falling under any of the provisions of the Penal Code or any other law.” The mere assembly of 5 or more persons with such legally impermissible object itself constitutes the offence of unlawful assembly punishable under Section 143 IPC. It is not necessary that any overt act is required to be committed by such an assembly to be punished under Section 143.
26. If force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly or any member thereof in prosecution of the common objective of such assembly, every member of such assembly is declared under Section 146 to be guilty of the offence of rioting punishable with two years’ imprisonment under Section 147. To constitute the offence of rioting under Section 146, the use of force or violence need not necessarily result in the achievement of the common object. In other words, the employment of force or violence need not result in the commission of a crime or the achievement of any one of the five enumerated common objects under Section 141.
27 . Section 148 declares that rioting armed with deadly weapons is a distinct offence punishable with the longer period of imprisonment (three years). There is a distinction between the offences under Sections 146 and 148. To constitute an offence under Section 146, the members of the “unlawful assembly” need not carry weapons. But to constitute an offence under Section 148, a person must be a member of an unlawful assembly, such assembly is also guilty of the offence of rioting under Section 146 and the person charged with an offence under Section 148 must also be armed with a deadly weapon.
28 . Section 149 propounds a vicarious liability in two contingencies by declaring that ( i ) if a member of an unlawful assembly commits an offence in prosecution of the common object of that assembly , then every member of such unlawful assembly is guilty of the offence committed by the other members of the unlawful assembly, and ( ii ) even in cases where all the members of the unlawful assembly do not share
59
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters
the same common object to commit a particular offence, if they had the knowledge of the fact that some of the other members of the assembly are likely to commit that particular offence in prosecution of the common object.
29. The scope of Section 149 IPC was enunciated by this Court in Masalti : (AIR p. 211, para 17)
“ 17 . … The crucial question to determine in such a case is whether the assembly consisted of five or more persons and whether the said persons entertained one or more of the common objects as specified by Section 141. While determining this question, it becomes relevant to consider whether the assembly consisted of some persons who were merely passive witnesses and had joined the assembly as a matter of idle curiosity without intending to entertain the common object of the assembly. It is in that context that the observations made by this Court in Baladin assume significance; otherwise, in law, it would not be correct to say that before a person is held to be a member of an unlawful assembly, it must be shown that he had committed some illegal overt act or had been guilty of some illegal omission in pursuance of the common object of the assembly. In fact, Section 149 makes it clear that if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence; and that emphatically brings out the principle that the punishment prescribed by Section 149 is in a sense vicarious and does not always proceed on the basis that the offence has been actually committed by every member of the unlawful assembly.”
60
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters
30. It can be seen from the above, Sections 141, 146 and 148 create distinct offences. Section 149 only creates a vicarious liability. However, Sections 146, 148 and 149 contain certain legislative declarations based on the doctrine of vicarious liability. The doctrine is well known in civil law especially in the branch of torts, but is applied very sparingly in criminal law only when there is a clear legislative command. To be liable for punishment under any one of the provisions, the fundamental requirement is the existence of an unlawful assembly as defined under Section 141 made punishable under Section 143 IPC.
31. The concept of an unlawful assembly as can be seen from Section 141 has two elements:
( i ) The assembly should consist of at least five persons; and
( ii ) They should have a common object to commit an offence or achieve any one of the objects enumerated therein.
32. For recording a conclusion, that a person is ( i ) guilty of any one of the offences under Sections 143, 146 or 148 or ( ii ) vicariously liable under Section 149 for some other offence, it must first be proved that such person is a member of an “unlawful assembly” consisting of not less than five persons irrespective of the fact whether the identity of each one of the 5 persons is proved or not. If that fact is proved, the next step of inquiry is whether the common object of the unlawful assembly is one of the 5 enumerated objects specified under Section 141 IPC.
33. The common object of assembly is normally to be gathered from the circumstances of each case such as the time and place of the gathering of the assembly, the conduct of the gathering as distinguished from the conduct of the individual members are indicative of the common object of the gathering. Assessing the common object of an assembly only on the basis of the overt acts committed by such individual members of the
61
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters
assembly, in our opinion is impermissible. For example, if more than five people gather together and attack another person with deadly weapons eventually resulting in the death of the victim, it is wrong to conclude that one or some of the members of such assembly did not share the common object with those who had inflicted the fatal injuries (as proved by medical evidence); merely on the ground that the injuries inflicted by such members are relatively less serious and nonfatal.
34. For mulcting liability on the members of an unlawful assembly under Section 149, it is not necessary that every member of the unlawful assembly should commit the offence in prosecution of the common object of the assembly. Mere knowledge of the likelihood of commission of such an offence by the members of the assembly is sufficient. For example, if five or more members carrying AK 47 rifles collectively attack a victim and cause his death by gunshot injuries, the fact that one or two of the members of the assembly did not in fact fire their weapons does not mean that they did not have the knowledge of the fact that the offence of murder is likely to be committed.
35. The identification of the common object essentially requires an assessment of the state of mind of the members of the unlawful assembly. Proof of such mental condition is normally established by inferential logic. If a large number of people gather at a public place at the dead of night armed with deadly weapons like axes and firearms and attack another person or group of persons, any member of the attacking group would have to be a moron in intelligence if he did not know murder would be a likely consequence.”
62
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters near a public place i.e., Panchayat Bhawan when it remains closed, it is obvious that it would remain little secluded from usual time of public gathering. The deceased was not called for any fun-fare or for any celebration. The witnesses Akash Aagicha (P.W.9) and Pinki Nagwani (P.W.17) have categorically marked presence of all apart from corroborating evidence of Jeetu Nandwani (P.W.5) who reached there while the accused fled from the scene. The incident took place in front of house of P.W.17 and further P.W.9 who was called had also enmity with the deceased saw that accused appellants inflicted fatal blows on deceased by deadly weapons and by gun shots. The participation of accused armed with weapons and their presence at odd hours outside a secluded premises of common public place of Panchayat Bhawan would show that not only they were members of unlawful assembly but were also sharing the common object.
there is a defective investigation and the evidence of proper witnesses has not been recorded apart from the fact that the statements of witnesses were not promptly recorded. A perusal of the statement of P.W.17 on which the trial Court has believed would show that after the incident, her statement was recorded on 10.08.2018. But mere recording of the statement after sometime cannot be held to be fatal. If such a gruesome incident has occurred before a lady, it may happen that she would be examined
63
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters after she had time to recover from the shock of the incident and compose herself. Under these circumstances, any delay in recording statement of witness under Section 161 CrPC will not prejudice the prosecution. More so, if the statement was not recorded by the I.O., it is not expected that a lady who was an eyewitness to the incident occurred before her house would knock the door of the prosecution officer each and every day. On the other hand, if such an incident happens before one human being, he/she would be under the shock and fear, due to which, the witness may take some-time to recover from that incident.
64
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters
and the evidence of these witnesses supports each other.
“30. In C. Muniappan v. State of T.N . (2010) 9 SCC 567 this Court explained the law on this point in the following manner: (SCC p. 589, para 55)
“55.There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the IO and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation.”
65
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters
33. As far as the evidence of PW 5 is concerned, the High Court found that it was illogical that the dress of a child who was living with her parents in a different establishment would be kept in the custody of someone-else who was living elsewhere, particularly in the light of the possessive attitude of children that urges them to cling to their most precious belongings. In this regard, it has been submitted by the counsel for the appellant that while the daily wears of PW 5 were kept at the tube-well, fancy clothes for occasions were kept at the village house. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to agree with this reasoning of the High Court. Without attempting to indulge in any form of notional psychoanalysis of the child witness (PW5), we wish to emphasise that she was not subjected to any crossexamination on this point and hence any form of conjecture on this point would be wholly improper on our part. However, the learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that PW 5 was a tutored witness relying upon the fact that she had not taken a bath before leaving the house with her father to purportedly attend a marriage ceremony. We find that this contention is wholly frivolous having no material bearing on the present case.
34.The learned counsel for the respondents has further sought to attack the testimony of this prosecution witness (PW 5) on the ground of delay in recording of her statement by the investigating officer. In support of this submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of this Court in State of U.P. v. Ashok Dixit , (2000) 3 SCC 70 Vijaybhai Bhanabhai Patel v. Navnitbhai Nathubhai Patel (2004) 10 SCC 583 and Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2005) 3 SCC 689 . However, we find that none of these cases help the case of the respondents since Vijaybhai Bhanabhai Patel v. Navnitbhai Nathubhai Patel, does not pertain to the case of a child witness and in State of U.P. v. Ashok Dixit and Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab, delay in recording of evidence was not per se held to be fatal to the prosecution case but the testimony of the child witness in each case was found to be incredible on account of material
66
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters
contradictions and lack of independent corroboration. We find that this is not the case here. In this context, we may note that the trial court has observed that PW 5 was crossexamined on practically every detail of the prosecution story and her statement corroborated every part thereof. Moreover, the delay in recording of the statement of PW 5 was not unexplained. It was rightly observed by the learned trial Judge that the delay was on account of the fact that the investigating officer wanted to assure himself of the veracity of her statement and hence, she was examined after she had time to recover from the shock of the incident and compose herself. Under these circumstances, any delay in examining this witness under Section 161 CrPC will not prejudice the prosecution.
67
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters another place. The plea can, therefore, succeed only if it is shown that the accused was so far away at the relevant time that he could not be present at the place where the crime was committed. The witnesses P.W.9 Akash and P.W.17 Pinki on the other hand stated the presence of accused Vishal and Sagar in the scene of crime. The photographs of CCTV footage though were produced, the admissibility of the same becomes a question with regard to their presence.
| Sd/- | Sd/- |
|---|---|
| (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge |
(N.K. Chandravanshi) Judge |
Gowri / Rao
68
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters
Head-notes
f) lkf{k;ksa dh lR;rk ,oa fo'oluh;rk ds ckjs esa lansg mRiUu ugha djrs gSa] rc lk{; dks Lohdkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA lR; tkuus gsrq U;k;ky; lkf{k;ksa ds laiw.kZ vfHklk{; esa ls egRoiw.kZ rF;ksa dks iFkd dj ldrh gSA69
CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters
(6) Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 149 ds rgr vijk/k ds xBu gsrq fof/k fo:) teko dk lkekU; mís'; lkekU;r% ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls yxk;k tkuk pkfg, tSls fd fo"ke le; esa ,dkar {ks= esa ,df=r gksus dk le; o LFkkuA
3 issues framed by the court
Could the murder convictions stand despite alleged eyewitness improvements, medical inconsistencies, delayed statements and investigative lapses?
Was membership of an unlawful assembly sharing a common object established for liability under Section 149 IPC?
Did the defence evidence establish the appellants' plea of alibi?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ravi Sharma Versus State (Government of NCT of Delhi)Relied on¶202
Ravi Sharma Versus State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2022) 8 SCC 536 · Who else cites this
Chandrappa Vs. State of KarnatakaRelied on¶202
Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 · Who else cites this
Pratap Singh Versus State of M.P.Distinguished¶214
Pratap Singh Versus State of M.P. (2005) 13 SCC 624 · Who else cites this
Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Mohd. Parvej Abdul KayuumRelied on¶217
Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Mohd. Parvej Abdul Kayuum (2019) 12 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Karan Singh Vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶230
Karan Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2022) 6 SCC 52 · Who else cites this
Shahid Khan Versus State of RajasthanReferred¶246
Shahid Khan Versus State of Rajasthan (2016) 4 SCC 96 · Who else cites this
State of Uttarakhand Vs. Darshan SinghRelied on¶272
State of Uttarakhand Vs. Darshan Singh (2020) 12 SCC 605 · Who else cites this
Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh Vs. State of HaryanaRelied on¶265
Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2011)
Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath JhaRelied on¶298
(2003) 12 SCC 606 · Who else cites this
Shamsher Singh Vs. State of HaryanaRelied on¶301
(2002) 7 SCC 536 · Who else cites this
Dalbir Singh v. State of HaryanaRelied on¶314
Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2008) 11 SCC 425, · Who else cites this
Krishna Mochi v. State of BiharRelied on¶315
Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar (2002) 6 SCC 81 · Who else cites this
Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer SinghRelied on¶317
Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh (2017) 11 SCC 195 · Who else cites this
Mohd. Rojali Ali v. State of AssamRelied on¶336
Mohd. Rojali Ali v. State of Assam, reported in (2019) 19 SCC 567 · Who else cites this
Sushil Vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶337
Sushil Vs. State of U.P., reported in 1995
Matibar Singh v. State of U.P.Relied on¶340
Matibar Singh v. State of U.P.
Mahesh v. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶345
Mahesh v. State of Maharashtra (2008) 13 SCC 271 · Who else cites this
Nagarjit Ahir Vs State of BiharRelied on¶354
(2005) 10 SCC 369 · Who else cites this
Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of U.P.Relied on¶357
(2016) 4 SCC 357 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan v. Arjun SinghRelied on¶370
State of Rajasthan v. Arjun Singh (2011) 9 SCC 115, · Who else cites this
Kuldip Yadav Versus State of BiharReferred¶371
Kuldip Yadav Versus State of Bihar (2011) 5 SCC 324 · Who else cites this
Laxminarayana versus state of ChhattisgarhReferred¶371
Laxminarayana versus state of Chhattisgarh AIROnline 2022 Chh 165
Daya Kishan v. State of HaryanaApplied¶374
Daya Kishan v. State of Haryana, (2010) 5 SCC 81 · Who else cites this
Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel v. Ravibhai Dudabhai PatelApplied¶379
(2018) 7 SCC 743 · Who else cites this
Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar SinghRelied on¶414
Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh (2004) 9 SCC 186 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 3 enactments
Sanni Tharwani
Sagar Tharwani
Vishal Tharwani
State Of Chhattisgarh
Lakhan Dhimar
Suraj Kartari
Goutam Bhaduri
N.K. Chandravanshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court