STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. v. MANOJ KUMAR AND ANR.
Citation: [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 521; 1993 INSC 356
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N.P. SINGH
Judgment date:
Case summary
1993 INSC 356. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1993-11-02. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. v. MANOJ KUMAR AND ANR. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S. C. R. ,.. - STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. v. MAN()J KUMAR AND ANR. NOVEMBER 2, 1993 (K. RAMASWAMY AND N. P. SINGH, JJ. ) I11dia11 Penal Code 1860 : Section 302 and 304. Murder-Repeated attacks to knock down the deceased by car-Death caused by knocking down- Nature of offence-Held punishable under section 302 and not under 304. · Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : Conviction based on testimony of the sole eye witness-Legality of. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Section 154-FIR-Delay in lodg-in~When satisfactorily explained-Prosecution case cannot be rejected. Respondent 'M' was tried for an offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 1be prosecution case was that on June 22, 1988 two brothers, R and C left for Rohtak, from the residence of their father at New Delhi on a Motor-cycle. On their way they stopped ·at a shop at Bahadurgarh for refreshment where they parked their motors cycle in front of the car of the accused, M.
When they came back to remove their motorcycle there was an altercation between the parties and the accused threatened to kill both the brothers. When they left for Rohtak, the accused followed them and repeated attempts to crush them on the road. Out of fear the two ~rothers stopped ~eir motorcycle on the side of the road, in front of a tractor-trolley to save themselves. In the meanwhile C came down from the motor cycle and wanted to go behind the tractor-trolley to take shelter but the accused hit C by the right side of his car with force. Because of the impact, C was thrown from the road inside, the trolley which was carrying agricultural implements and consequently C got some incised wounds. Thereafter, the car proceeded in great speed grazing with the tractor-trolley. R got a Matador stopped on the way and asked the driver to take his brother to hospital and he followed the Matador on Motorcycle. But on reaching the hospital, C was declared dead.
The informant, father of the victim, stated in his evidence that he got the information at about 2. 00 AM and on reaching Rohtak at about 4. 00 AM in the morning, he found that R was virtually unconscious because of the shock. Only at about 522 SUPRJ? ME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S. C. R. 9. 00 A. M. he got the full details from him and then lodged the first informatio. n report at about 11. lS A. M. On June 23, 1988 mentioning all. the facts relating to the occurrence on the basis of the Information given to him by R. The glass pieces as well plastic strips of the car piCked up from the scene of occurrence were sent for examination and the expert opinion confirm'ed that broken pieces of the glass and J! lastic strips were of the car of the accused. On June 25, the accused was arrested. The car was also seized from his premises and the right side of the car was found to have been badly damaged.
Relying on the testimony of the sole eye-witness, R, the Trial Court convicted ~ and sentenced hiin to imprisonment for life. However, on . appeal, the High Court acquitted the accused by rejecting the testimony of R inasmuch as it doubted his presence with the victim on the ground that he did not reach the hospital along with the victim. The High Court also drew adverse inference because of delay in lodging the FIR inasmuch as R did not lodge the FIR during the night itself. ) ,- In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the State that the circumstantial evidence fully supported the prosecution case and the. High Court erred in rejecting the evidence of R whose presence at the time of the occurrence was never questioned by the accused during trial. On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that even on the prosecution case the accused could at the utmost be prosecuted for an offence under section 304 and not under section 302 IPC. - .
F Allowing the appeal and setting aside the . order of the High Court, this Court, HELD : 1. A conviction can be based and the verdict of the court can rest even on the testimony of the sole witness, If the court is fully satlsfted that such witness ls a truthful witness and his presence at the Ume of occurence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. [529·C·D] 1. 1 From a bare reading of the evidence of R, It appears that he has deposed in a very straight forward manner, giving every detail of the Incident and as to how the accused-respondent made repeated attempts to crush them on the road, because of the altercaUon. There ls n0 scope for STATE OF HARYANAv. MANOJ [N. P. SINGH, J. ] 523 imaginary doubt about the correctness of his version. Nothing has been elicited in the cross·e~amination. No part of his evidence has been demolished. The other witnesses and circumstances only corroborate the statement of R. Therefore, the High court committed a grave error in rejecting his evidence.
(528-B·C-F] 2. It is true that time factor has an important role in context of I lodging of a first information report•. But, if the prosecution explains the delay satisfactorily, the Court is not expected to reject the whole prosecution case merely on that ground. The present case is one such case where taking all facts and circumstances into consideration, the prosecution case cannot be rejected on the ground that the first information report was not lodged during the night. (529-G-H; 530-A] 3. The accused intentionally caused such bodily injuries, as he knew to be likely to cause the death of C. As such he committed the offence of murder within he meaning of Section 300, liable to be punished for an offence under section 302 of the Penal Code. (530-D] 4. The motive, as well as the genesis of the occurrence have been virturelly admitted by the defence.
The prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and there is no scope for giving any benefit of doubt to the accused-respondent. (527-F; 530-B] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 698of1993. From the Judgment and order dated 27. 8. 1992 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl. A. 209/DB/90. p With Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 322 of 1993. Ms. Indu Malhotra, Ms. Shirin Jain and S. Saharan-in-Person for the appellant/petitioner. K. Madhava Reddy, Prem Malhotra and T. C. Sharma for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N. P. SINGH, J. Special leave granted in S. L. P. (Crl. ) No. 293 of 1993 . . This appeal is on behalf of the State of Haryana for setting aside the judgment of the High Court, acquitting the accused- respondent Manoj Kumar, who had been convicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, by the Sessions Judge, Rohtak.
The ·case of the prosecution is that on June 22, 1988, at about 7. 00 P. M. Rohan (PW-14) and Chetan (deceased), the two sons of the informant, Col. Ajit Singh Saharan (PW-13), started for Rohtak, from the residence of the informant at New Delhi on a motorcycle bearing No. HY0-5550, to meet their ~other Shakuntala Saharan who was residing then at Ashiyana Green Road, Rohtak. They stopped at Bahadurgarh on the way at about 7. 45 P. M. at a shop for refreshment. A Maruti Car bearing No. HYU-9808 was parked and the two sons of the informant parked their motorcycle in front of the said car. In the meantime, the accused Manoj Kumar came and sat in his car aforesaid. But due to cycles and motorcycle aforesaid parked there, he could not take out his Maruti car and he started blowing the horn of his car continuously. He also started abusing loudly as to why those cycles and motorcycle had been parked there.
As soon as Chetan heard abuses, he came to remove the motorcycle and asked the accused not to hurl abuses. There was exchange of hot words. Rohan also reached near the car, after· parking the motorcycle, but exchange of hot words continued. The accused threatened both of them saying, "Come out of Bahadurgarh. I will see you. " Rohan retorted, ''What you will see us outside? See us here. " The accused repeated, "Come outside. I will kill both of you. " Thereafter the accused went away, but Rohan and. Chetan remained there in front of the said shop out of fear. On enquiry, Rohan and chetan. learnt that the name of accused was Manoj Kumar and he was the s f the mother of the deceased and other members of the family at Rohtak in absence of the father of the victim, who was then at Delhi, can be well appreciated. We are of the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and there is no scope for giving any benefit of doubt to the accused-respondent.
On behalf of the accused-respondent, it was urged that even if the prosecution case is accepted at its face value, still the accused-respondent cannot be convicted for an offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code; utmost he can be convicted for an offence under Section 304 of the Penal Code. It is not possible to accept this contention. The accused after leaving Bahadurgarh, made repeated attempts to knock down the two brothers by his car and ultimately he succeeded in doing so, when Chetan was standing on the road. The impact was so serious that Chetan was thrown from road D, to the trolley. It is fully established that accused intentionally caused such bodily injuries, as the accused knew to be likely to cause the death of Chetan. As such he committed the offence of murder within the meaning of Section 300, liable to be punished for an offence under Section 302 of, the Penal Code. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside.
The accused-respondent Manoj Kumar is convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. He should surrender within one week from today, failing which all steps be taken by the concerned authorities to take him into custody, to serve out the sentence. In view of the order passed in the above appeal, filed on behalf of the State of Haryana, there is no necessity to pass the same order in the Special Leave Petition filed on behalf of the ·informant. The petition filed by the informant is held to have become infructuous and accordingly the same is hereby dismissed. T. N. A. Appeal allowed.
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.