BUDHWA ALIAS RAMCHARAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-1990-10-75
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADHYA PRADESH)
Decided on October 05,1990

BUDHWA ALIAS RAMCHARAN Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

MUHSTAQ AHMAD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1996-1-4] [REFERRED TO]
SUGALI SANKARAMMA VS. VANNA VENKATESWARLU [LAWS(APH)-2004-1-91] [REFERRED TO]
RAM LAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1995-7-46] [REFERRED TO]
BABARIYA VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2002-7-28] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGIYA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2004-3-81] [REFERRED TO]
CHANTU VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2006-11-56] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDARSINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1992-7-34] [REFERRED TO]
RAMLAL PRABHULAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1992-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2007-1-9] [REFERRED TO]
CHHABILAL VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2008-11-53] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR ALIAS FANTUS VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1991-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
ABID AKHTAR S/O LATE HAJI ABDUL JABBAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2013-7-27] [REFERRED TO]
Sewakram Marar VS. State of Madhya Pradesh [LAWS(MPH)-1999-11-55] [REFERRED TO]
Ramlal VS. State of M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-1992-8-39] [REFERRED TO]
BISLIYA ALIAS BISALI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(CHH)-2014-2-6] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2013-10-110] [REFERRED TO]
Chandra Singh VS. State of M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-1992-7-69] [REFERRED TO]
FALITRAM VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(CHH)-2015-9-54] [REFERRED]
BHAGWAN CHARAN SON OF LALA BHAIYA VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2007-2-142] [RELIED ON]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. KISMATDIN [LAWS(MPH)-2007-3-158] [RELIED ON]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. NANDI [LAWS(MPH)-2007-5-110] [REFERRED]
PAPPU YADAV, SON OF JODHA YADAV VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2017-4-164] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ YADAV AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2018-1-456] [REFERRED TO]
KANT PANDEY VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-11-41] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Fathima Beevi, J. - (1.)This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh confirming the conviction of the appellants for the offences under Sections 147 and 302 /149, I.P.C and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellants and four persons acquitted by the trial court were tried for the murder of one Hanuwa. The prosecution allged that motivated by group rivalry the accused persons attacked Hanuwa with tabbals and lathis on July 11, 1975 at about 8:30 am . The occurance happened on the track accross the feild leading to village Mungeli . Hanuwa accompanied by his mother Baiyanbai and sister Brijbai was on his way to Mungeli to supply milk. When he reached Bhatora near Nayagaon village, the accused persons advanced towards him and mounted the attack. As a result of the injuries sustained , Hanuwa died on the spot. When Baiyanbai tried to intervene, she too was assaulted . Baiyanbai lodged the first information report at 12.00 noon the same day against the appellants and others who were finally chargesheeted.
(2.)Baiyanbai (PW-1) and Birjhbai (PW-5) were the two eye-witnesses who unfolded the prosecution case. Mangal (PW-4) and Dilaslibai (PW-6) deposed to having seen appellants Baran, Bhagau, Karan and Parsadi armed with lathis and tabbals hurriedly going towards the place of occurrence ahead of the deceased at a short distance. The medical evidence disclosed that Hanuwa sustained in all seven injuries; two incised wounds on the sealp resulting in multiple fracture of the parietal bone,and tear of right lobe of the brain; two contusions and three bruises on the forearm, right upper arm scapular region and buttock. Injuries sustained by PW-1 was incised wound in between right thumb and index finger which could be caused with any sharp object. The plea of the accused was that they were falsely implicated due to enmity. The learned Sessions judge accepted the prosecution evidence and convicted these appellants finding that they were members of an unlawful assembly and death of Hanuwa was caused by the members in prosecution of the common object of- the assembly. Arjun, Bhikam, Nanku and Parethan were given the benefit of doubt in view of' the discrepancies in mentioning their names and they were acquitted. The High Court on appeal agreed with the findings of the trial court and coifirmed the conviction and sentence.
(3.)The conviction of the appellants is assailed before us mainly on the ground that the two eye-witnesses in the case are close relations of the deceased deeply interested in involving the appellants on account of the enmity and their evidence was required to be scrutinised with great care and caution and the trial court as well as the High Court failed to exercise the necessary caution with the result conviction has been wrongly recorded leading to miscarriage of justice. According to the appellants learned counsel, the evidence of the eye-witnesses read along with the medical evidence renders the prosecution case highly improbable and doubtful about the presence and participation of the appellants in the assault. It is submitted that the tendency to involve innocent persons by merely mentioning their names is discernible and in the absence of independent corroboration the conviction based on the testimony of PW-1 and PW-5 is unwarranted.
;


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