PERFECT MACHINE TOOLS CO. LTD. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
LAWS(SC)-2016-3-106
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on March 17,2016

Perfect Machine Tools Co. Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The correctness of the concurrent findings recorded in the impugned judgment dated 5.01.2010 on the charge against the appellant with regard to the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) is under challenge in this criminal appeal, urging various legal contentions.
(2.) The machinery of the criminal law was set into motion by filing of a First Information Report (Case Crime No. 412) by one Ramesh Chandra, informant/brother of the deceased, on 11.08.1980 registered with the Police Station, Jwalapur, District Saharanpur alleging that on 11.08.1980 in the evening at about 5.30 p.m., he along with his grandfather, Chauhal Singh, and his sister (since deceased) were in the fields. According to him, the deceased had gone to the adjoining corn field for cutting grass, when her cries 'to leave her alone' were heard. On hearing it, when the informant and his grandfather reached the spot they saw that both the accused persons were holding the deceased. The accused/appellant hit the neck of the deceased with Daraanti. On seeing the informant and his grandfather approaching the spot, both the accused persons ran away.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant questioned the correctness of the concurrent findings recorded on the charge against the accused/appellant on various grounds, inter alia, contended that the concurrent findings on the charge is erroneous for non-examination of the witness, namely, Chauhal Singh, grandfather of the deceased. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, though they are eye-witnesses, do not support the prosecution case. Therefore, the concurrent findings of fact is erroneous in law and liable to be set aside. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that both the courts below have committed an error in law in not examining the case in proper perspective after proper appreciation and re-appreciation of evidence on record.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.