PRAHALAD PATELversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

--
                           [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471

                           PRAHALAD PATEL                                A
                                     v.
                    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                  (Criminal Appeal No. 1209 of 2007)
                             MARCH 2, 2011
                                                                         B
             [P. S.ATHASIVAM AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.]

          PENAL CODE, 1860:

            s.302 - Murder - Conviction by trial court - Upheld by       c
       High Court - HELD: The prosecution has proved that on a
       petty issuf1, the accused had a grudge against the victim, and
       on the date of incident, in presence of the eye-witness caused
       fatal injuries by axe to the victim - The prosecution by way of
       medical evidence, the evidence of eye-witness and other           0
      .witnesses, seizure of the axe at the instance of the accused,
     · ahd the FSL report has proved its case against the accused
       beyond doubt - There is no ground for interference with the
      judgments of courts below - Constitution. of India, 1950 -
       Article 136.
                                                                         E
          CONSTITUT/Of:J OF IND/A, 1950:

          Article 136 - Appeal against judgment of High Court
      upholding conviction of accused as recorded by trial court -
      HELD: It is settled law that when the trial court and the . F
      appellate court, on appreciation of evidence, by relying on
      acceptable materials, arrived at a conc/Lision, ·in the absence
     ·of perversity in such a conclusion, interference by Supreme
      Court exercising'jurisdiction under Article 136 is not warranted
      - Penal Code, 1860 - s.302.                                      G
          The accused - appellant was prosecuted fo.r causing
     the. death of the brother of PWs.2 and 7. The prosecution
     case was that over a petty issue of forbearing the
                                   471                                   H
                                                                -----
     472      SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2011] 3 S.C.R.


 A accused from throwing grass on the path, he bore a
   grudge against the brother of PWs 2 and 7. On the date
   of incident when the victim was breaking stones in the
   mine, the accused went there with an axe and caused
   several axe injuries to the victim, who ultimately died in
 B the hospital in an unconscious stage. The incident was
   witnessed by PW 1, the fellow worker in the mine, who
   informed victim's brother and also lodged the FIR. The
   trial court convicted the accused of the offence
   punishable u/s 302 IPC and sentc!nced him to
 c Imprisonment for life. The High Court upheld the
   conviction and the sentence. Aggrieved, the accused flied
   the appeal.

           Dismissing the appeal, the Court

 D       HELD: 1.1 The evidence of eye-witness PW-1 and his
    statement (Ext. P-1), the statement of the doctor (PW-16)
    and his report (Ext. P-21) clearly prove that the death of
    victim was homicidal. It is true that in the medical
    examination report (Ext. P-10), prepared by the doctor
  E (PW-9), all the injuries mentioned in the autopsy report
    have not been noted. However, as rightly observed by the
    High Court, sometimes some injuries may not be visible
    after passage of time. This Court also verified both the
    reports and found that the said discrepancy is not
. F material to the prosecution case. [para 4-5] [476-G; 477-
    F-H]
        1.2 The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of
   PW-1, the eye-witness to the incident, who also narrated
   the earlier incident about throwing bushes on the path-
 G way and the altercation between the accused and the
   deceased and also the fact that he accompanied the
   deceased to the mine. There is no reason to disbelieve
 • his version. Apart from this, it was PW-1 who took the
   injured to the hospital and made a complaint In the Police
 H Station. Besides, the prosecution has also examined PW-
--
            PRAHALAD PATEL v. STATE OF MADHYA                  473
                        PRADESH
       2 and PW-7-two brothers of the deceased. Both of them,         A
       in their evidence, have affirmed that PW-1 had come to
       their house and informed them that the accused
     1
       assaulted their brother with an axe. They further narrated
       that the victim was rushed to the Hospital and on the way,
       PW-1 made a complaint to the police. Though, PWs 2 and         B
       7 are brothers of the deceased, relationship is not a factor
       to affect credibility of a witness. Their evidence fully
       corroborates with the evidence of PW-1 about the manner
       of occurrence and he witnessed the same. [para 6] [478-
       A-E]                                                           C
          lsrar vs. State of U.P. 2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 695 = (2005)
      9 SCC 616 and S. Sudershan Reddy vs. State of A.P., (2006)
      10 sec 163 =AIR 2006 sc .2716 - relied on.
           1.3 The doctor (PW-16) has observed that the death         D
     . was due to the injuries sustained. The weapon of offence,
       namely, axe, was seized at the Instance of the accused.
       The report from the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ext. P-
       17) shows that the blood found on the axe was human
       blood. [para 7] [478-F-G]                                      E

           2. It is settled law that when the trial court and the
      appellate court, on proper appreciation of evidence by
      relying on acceptable materials, arrived at a conclusion,
      in the absence of perversity in such a conclusion,
      interference by this Court exercising jurisdiction under F
      Article 136 of the Constitution is not warranted.
      Considering the evidence of PW-1 and addition~!
      testimony of PWs 2 and 7 coupled with doctors' evidence
      and seizure of the weapon and the FSL report, it is held
      that the prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt G
      against the accused and the same was rightly
      considered by the Sessions Judge and affirmed by the
      Division Bench of the High Court. There Is no legal
      ground for Interference. [para 8] [478-H; 479-A-B]
                                                                  H
                                                                         --
    474      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2011) 3 $.C.R.

A                           Case Law Reference:
          2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 695 relied on             para 6
          (2006) 10 sec 163           relled on         para 6
B       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 1209 of 2007.                ·

        From the Judgment & Order dated 14.03.2005 of the High
    Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.
    774 of 1996.
c
          D.B. Goswami, Dr. Sushil Balwada for the Appellant.
         Siddhartha Dave, Jemtiben A.O., Vibha Datta Mahija for
    the Respondent.
D         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
        P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the
  final judgment and order dated 14.03.2005 passed by the High
  Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.
E 774 of 1996 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court
  upheld the judgment dated 26.02.1996 passed by the learned
  Sessions Judge, Sagar, in Sessions Case No. 196 of 1995
  convicting the appellant herein under Section 302 of the Indian
  Penal Code (in short 'the IPC') and sentenced him to undergo
F imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default. to further
  undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
          2. Brief Facts:
        (a) In Village Chandpur, the accused Prahalad Patel, while
G cultivating his land had thrown bushes on the path. Daulat-the
  deceased objected. to it and told the accused not to throw the
  bushes on the path, because of this, there was an altercation
  between the deceased and the accused. Due to this incident,
  the accused developed a grudge against the deceased. On
H
--
         . PRAHALAD PATEL v. STATE OF MADHYA                        475
               PRADESH [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)
                           \


     01.02.1995, at around 12 hours, when the deceased was A
     breaking stones in the mine and one Nanhebhai (PW-1)was
     collecting it nearby, at that time, accused Prahalad Patel came
     there with an axe and inflicted several injuries to the deceased
     by hitting him at his right leg, left hand, left shoulder and on back
     of his head, due t<> which, he fell down on the earth and blood B
     started oozing out. One Gudda-brother of the accused was also
     present in the.mine but, out of fear, Nanhebhai (PW-1) and
     Gudda did not try to save the deceased. Thereafter, Nanhebtiai
     (PW-1) rushed to the house of Daulat and narrated the whole
     incident to his brother and mother. They went to the mine and c
     brought Daulat. He was taken to Police Station Rahli but by that
     time he became unconscious. The report of the incident (Ex.
     P-1) was lodged by Nanhebhai (PW-1) iii the Police Station.
     Thereafter, Daulat was sent for medical examination to the
     hospital at Rahli. Dr. Gupta (PW-9) examined him and i~sued 0
     a report (Ex.P-10) mentioning various injuries. On the advise
     of the doctor, in an unconscious condition, he was taken to
     Medical College Hospital at Jabalpur for further treatment.
     During treatment, he succumbed to injuries. The dead body
     was sent for post-mortem and Dr. A.K.Jain (PW-16) conducted
     the post-mortem and prepared a report (EK P-21). According E
     to him, the cause of death was due to cut and other injuries.
          (b) During investigation, police prepared a spot map and
     seized the blood stained sand and simple sand from the place
     of incident. The accused was taken into custody and the axe            F
     was recovered at his instance. On completion of investigation,
     charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 302
     IPC.
          (c) The accused denied having committed any offence and           G
     stated that he had enmity with Nanhebhai (PW-1) because
     there is a case pending against the brother of Nanhebhai for
     causing injuries to his father and, therefore, he falsely implicated
     him.
          (d) The Sessions Judge, on consideration of the materials,        H
                                                                       --
      476     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011) 3 S.C.R.


  A by judgment dated 26.02.1996, accepted the prosecution's
    case and found the accused guilty for the offence punishable
    under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo
    imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,000/-.
          (e) Being aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge,
  8
      the accused preferred an. appeal before the High Court of
      Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The Division Bench of the High
      Court, by its impugned judgment dated 14.03.2005, upheld the
      conclusion arrived at by the Sessions Judge and confirmed the
      conviction and sentence of the accused.
  c
          (f) Questioning the same, the accused had filed the above
      appeal before this Court after obtaining special leave
          3. Heard Mr. D.B. Goswami, learned counsel for the
  0 accused/appellant  and Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned counsel
    for the respondent-State.
         4. There is no dispute that there was an altercation
    between the accused and the deceased on a petty issue and
. E the accused nurtured grudge against the deceased. On
    01.02.1995, when the deceased was working in the mine, the
    accused inflicted several injuries to the deceased with an axe.
    Immediately after the occurrence, Nanhebhai (PW-1), who was
    working in the same mine informed his family members aoout
    the incident and they took the injured to the Police Station and
  F (PW-1) made a statement about the incident which has been
    marked as (Ex. P-1). When the deceased was taken to Medical
    College Hospital at Jabalpur, Dr. A.K. Jain (PW-16) certified
    that he succumbed to his injuries. The evidence of eye-witness
    (PW-1) and his report (Ex. P-1), the statement of Dr. AK. Jain
  G (PW-16) and his report (Ex. P-21) clearly prove that the death
    of Daulat was homicidal.
          5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended
    that there was discrepancy in the number of injuries as recorded
  H by Dr. Gupta (PW-9) and by Dr. AK. Jain (PW-16). It is true
--
          PRAHALAD PATEL v. STATE OF MADHYA                      477
           ·· PRADESH [P. SATHASIVAM; J.]
     that the doctor who conducted the autopsy found as many as          A
     eight injuries which are as follows:-
                 .                              .
          "(i) . Repaired wound present over back of right shoulder
                  top 4" long.                          •
           (ii) Incised wound back of neck at the level of C7 T1         B
                   1x%x%.

           (iii) Repaired wound over the back of skull left side of
                   occiput 1" long transversely.                · ·
                                                                         c
           (iv)   ~epaired wound present over the Cervico-temporal
                   region left side vertical 3" long.
           (v) Chop wound present over left eye brow region cutting
                the skin muscle and underlying bone 2"x1"xt".
                                                                         D
           (vi) Chop wound on the upper part left to forearm near
                 elbow cutting the ulna and lower part of humerus
                 bone 4" x2" x bone deep.      ·
           (vii) Repaired wound present over the right knee and
                                                                         E
           (viii) Multiple small abrasion present over the face below
                  ·the left eye and chin."                  ,,

     It is equally true that in (Ex. P-10), medical examination report
     prepared by Dr. Gupta (PW-9), all the above-mentioned injuries      F
     have not been noted. However, as .rightly observed by the High
     Court, sometimes some injuries may not be visiqle after
     passage of time. In fact, this suggestion was not put to the
     doctors .concerned. Whatever may be, as analyzed and
     concluded by the High Court, cause of death in this case was        G
     cranio cerebral injuries which have been found by both the
     doctors insc'~r as fatal injuries are concerned and, ·for this,
     tt)ere is no discrepancy between the two reports. We also
     verified both the .reports and we are satisfied that the said
     discrepancy is not material to the prosecution case: . . •
                                                                         H
                                                                            --
    478     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2011) 3 S.C.R.

A      6. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of (PW-
  1), eye-witness to the incident. (PW-1) also narrated the earlier
  incident about throwing bushes on the path-way to the
  agricultural field and the altercation between the accused and
  the deceased and also of the fact that he accompanied the
B deceased to the mine, there is no reason to disbelieve his
  version. Apart from this, it was (PW-1} who took the injured to
  the hospital and made a complaint in the Police Station. In
  addition to the same, the prosecution has also examined Kallu
  (PW-2)-brother of the deceased and (PW-7)-another brother of
c the deceased. Both of them, in their evidence, have affirmed
  that (PW-1) had come to their house and informed them that
  Prahalad Patel-the accused assaulted Daulat with an axe. They
  further narrated that Daulat was rushed to the Hospital and on
  the way, (PW-1) made a complaint to the police. The evidence
  of (PW-1) and the corroborative statements of PWs 2 and 7
0
  support the prosecution case. Though, PWs 2 and 7 are
  brothers of the deceased, relationship is not a factor to affect
  credibility of a witness. In a series of decisions, this court has
  accepted the above principle [vide /srar vs. State of U.P. (2005)
  9 SCC 616 and S. Sudershan Reddy vs. State of A.P., (2006)
E 10 SCC 163 = AIR 2006 SC 2716). Their evidence fully
  corroborates with the evidence of (PW-1) about the manner of
  occurrence and he witnessed the same.
         7. We have already noted that Dr. A.K. Jain (PW-16) has
F observed that the death was due to the injuries sustained. The
  · weapon of offence, namely, axe was seized at the instance cf
    the accused. The report from the Forensic Science Laboratory
    (Ex. P-17) shows that the blood found on the axe was human
    blood.
G
         8. It is settled law that when the trial Court and the appellate
    Court, on proper appreciation of evidence by relying on
    acceptable materials, arrived at a conclusion, in the absence
    of perversity in such a conclusion, interference by this Court
H exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution is
--         PRAHALAD PATEL v. STATE OF MADHYA                    479
               PRADESH {P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
      not warranted. Considering the evidence of (PW·t) and            A
      additional testimony of PWs 2 and 7 coupled with doctors'
      evidence and seizure of the weapon and the FSL report, we
      hold that the prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt
      against the accused and the same was rightly considered by
     .the Sessions Judge and affirmed by the Division· Bench ·of the   B
      High Court. We do not find any legal ground for interference.
         9. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is
     dismissed.

                                               Appeal ·dismissed.