# STATE OF HARYANA v. SHAKUNTLA AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2012] 5 S.C.R. 276
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2012-04-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 658 of 2008
- **Bench:** A.K. Patnaik, Swatanter Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-haryana-v-shakuntla-and-ors-28261
- **Pages:** 29

## Headnote

Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 325, 148 and 149 - Murder
- Common object - Armed assault on PW4's parents causing
c 30133 injuries on different parts of their body and
consequently their death - Earlier, on one occasion accused
'M' and 'R' had beaten PW4's parents, for which they were
facing criminal trial, and on another occasion they had
abused and beaten PW4 - All nine accused convicted by trial
0 court - High Court accepted the plea of alibi taken by three
accused i.e. 'S', 'P' and 'Sa' and acquitted them but upheld
conviction in relation to the other six accused (including 'M'
and 'R') -Cross-appeals by State and the six convicted
'accused - Held: M' and the other accused had been looking
E for an opportunity to fight with PW4's father and his family
members, on one pretext or the other - All the accused, except
those acquitted by the High Court, had participated with a
common mind to cause fatal injuries upon the parents of PW4
- PW-4, in his statement, clearly and definitely explained the
F occurrence, by attributing specific role to each one of the
accused - His version fully supported by that of PW-5, other
documentary evidence on record and also medical evidence
. - The members of the assembly had acted in furtherance to
the common object and the same object was made absolutely
clear by the words of accused 'M' when he exhorted all the
G others to 'finish' the deceased persons - PW4's father,
admittedly, had fallen on the ground - However, the accused
still continued inflicting heavy blows on him and kept on doing
so till he breathed his last - They did not even spare PW4's
H
276
STATE OF HARYANA v. SHAKUNTLA AND ORS.
277
mother and inflicted as many as 33 injuries on her body -
A
Where a person has the intention to cause injuries simplicitor
to another, he/she would certainly not inflict 30133 injuries on
the different parts of the body of the victim, including the spine
- The spine is a very delicate and vital part of the human body
- It, along with the ribs protects all the vital organs of the body,
B
the heart and lungs, etc. - Powerful blows on these parts of
the body can, in normal course, result in the death of a person,
as has happened in the instant case - The way in which the
crime has been committed reflects nothing but sheer brutality
- Conviction of six accused (as ordered by trial court and High c
Court) affirmed - As regards the other three accused 'S', 'P'
and 'Sa', the High Court accepted their plea of alibi keeping
in view the evidence led by the defence witnesses and
acquitted them - It was for the State to show that the High Court
completely fell in error of law or that judgment in relation to
0
these accused was palpably erroneous, perverse or untenable
- However, none of these parameters were satisfied in appeal
preferred by the State against acquittal of the three accused
- Judgment of High Court accordingly not interfered with.
Witness - Interested witness - Appreciation of - Held:
E
Once, the statement of a witness is found trustworthy and is
duly corroborated by other evidence, there is no reason for
the Court to reject the statement of such witness, merely on
the ground that it was a statement of a related or interested
witness - In the present case, the presence of PW-4 and PWF
5 (i.e. the children of the deceased couple) at the place of
occurrence was natural and their statements were trustworthy,
corroborated by other evidence and did not suffer from the
vice of suspicion or uncertainty - 30 and 33 injuries
respectively were caused on the bodies of the two deceased,
G
but still, PW-4 and PW-5 attributed specific role to each
individual accused, particularly with regard to the grievous
injuries caused by them - The Court has to give credence to
their statements as they lost their close relations and had no
reason to falsely implicate the accused persons, who were
H
278
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 5 S.C.R.
A a/so their relations.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Acquittal by
High

## Text

_Characters 0–39,955 of 57,225. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39955 for what follows._

A
B
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 276
STATE OF HARYANA
v.
SHAKUNTLA AND ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 658 of 2008)
APRIL 19, 2012
[A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 325, 148 and 149 - Murder
- Common object - Armed assault on PW4's parents causing
c 30133 injuries on different parts of their body and
consequently their death - Earlier, on one occasion accused
'M' and 'R' had beaten PW4's parents, for which they were
facing criminal trial, and on another occasion they had
abused and beaten PW4 - All nine accused convicted by trial
0 court - High Court accepted the plea of alibi taken by three
accused i.e. 'S', 'P' and 'Sa' and acquitted them but upheld
conviction in relation to the other six accused (including 'M'
and 'R') -Cross-appeals by State and the six convicted
'accused - Held: M' and the other accused had been looking
E for an opportunity to fight with PW4's father and his family
members, on one pretext or the other - All the accused, except
those acquitted by the High Court, had participated with a
common mind to cause fatal injuries upon the parents of PW4
- PW-4, in his statement, clearly and definitely explained the
F occurrence, by attributing specific role to each one of the
accused - His version fully supported by that of PW-5, other
documentary evidence on record and also medical evidence
. - The members of the assembly had acted in furtherance to
the common object and the same object was made absolutely
clear by the words of accused 'M' when he exhorted all the
G others to 'finish' the deceased persons - PW4's father,
admittedly, had fallen on the ground - However, the accused
still continued inflicting heavy blows on him and kept on doing
so till he breathed his last - They did not even spare PW4's
H
276
STATE OF HARYANA v. SHAKUNTLA AND ORS.
277
mother and inflicted as many as 33 injuries on her body -
A
Where a person has the intention to cause injuries simplicitor
to another, he/she would certainly not inflict 30133 injuries on
the different parts of the body of the victim, including the spine
- The spine is a very delicate and vital part of the human body
- It, along with the ribs protects all the vital organs of the body,
B
the heart and lungs, etc. - Powerful blows on these parts of
the body can, in normal course, result in the death of a person,
as has happened in the instant case - The way in which the
crime has been committed reflects nothing but sheer brutality
- Conviction of six accused (as ordered by trial court and High c
Court) affirmed - As regards the other three accused 'S', 'P'
and 'Sa', the High Court accepted their plea of alibi keeping
in view the evidence led by the defence witnesses and
acquitted them - It was for the State to show that the High Court
completely fell in error of law or that judgment in relation to
0
these accused was palpably erroneous, perverse or untenable
- However, none of these parameters were satisfied in appeal
preferred by the State against acquittal of the three accused
- Judgment of High Court accordingly not interfered with.
Witness - Interested witness - Appreciation of - Held:
E
Once, the statement of a witness is found trustworthy and is
duly corroborated by other evidence, there is no reason for
the Court to reject the statement of such witness, merely on
the ground that it was a statement of a related or interested
witness - In the present case, the presence of PW-4 and PWF
5 (i.e. the children of the deceased couple) at the place of
occurrence was natural and their statements were trustworthy,
corroborated by other evidence and did not suffer from the
vice of suspicion or uncertainty - 30 and 33 injuries
respectively were caused on the bodies of the two deceased,
G
but still, PW-4 and PW-5 attributed specific role to each
individual accused, particularly with regard to the grievous
injuries caused by them - The Court has to give credence to
their statements as they lost their close relations and had no
reason to falsely implicate the accused persons, who were
H
278
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 5 S.C.R.
A a/so their relations.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Acquittal by
High Court - Interference with - Scope of - Held: Against the
judgment of acquittal, onus is on the prosecution to show that
8
the finding recorded by the High Court is perverse and
requires correction by Supreme Court, in exercise of its
powers under Article 136 of the Constitution - An appellate
Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is a
double presumption in favour of the accused - Firstly, the
C presumption of innocence is available to such accused under
the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence, i.e., that
every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless proved
guilty before the court and secondly, that a lower court, upon
due appreciation of all evidence has found in favour of his
0 innocence - Merely because another view is possible, it would
be no reason for the Supreme Court to interfere with the order
of acquittal.
The prosecution case was that the nine accused
persons namely, 'M', 'R', 'K', 'B', 'S', 'P', 'Ka', 'Sa' and 'L'
E came armed with lathis and other deadly weapons and
launched armed assault on the parents of PW4 and thus
caused their death. Earlier, on one occasion accused 'M'
and 'R' had beaten PW4's parents, for which they were
facing criminal trial, and on another occasion they had
F abused and beaten PW4. The trial Court convicted all the
nine accused under Sections 148 as well as under
Section 325/302 both read with Section 149 IPC. On
appeal, the High Court accepted the plea of alibi taken by
three accused i.e. 'S', 'P' and 'Sa' and acquitted them but
G upheld the conviction in refation to the other six accused
(including 'M' and 'R').
The present three appeals have been filed against the
said judgment of the High Court. Criminal Appeal No. 658
of 2008 has been preferred by the State against the order
H
STATE OF HARYANA v. SHAKUNTLA AND ORS.
279
of acquittal of 'S', 'P' and 'Sa', Criminal Appeal No. 1005
A
of 2008 has been preferred by the five convicted accused
namely, 'M', 'R', 'K', 'B' and 'L' and Criminal Appeal No.
1707 of 2008 has been preferred by the accused, 'Ka'
against dismissal of their respective appeals by the High
Court.
B
Dismissing the appeals filed by the accused, as well
as the appeal filed by the State, the Court
HELD:1. The facts and circumstances of the case
clearly show that 'M' and the other accused had been
C
looking for an opportunity to fight with PW4's father and
his family members, on one pretext or the other. 'M'
exhorted the others to 'finish them', upon which the
accused persons started assaulting the victims and
continued till both the parents of PW4 died. The
D
circumstance deserving the attention of this Court is that,
even when PW4's father fell on the ground as a result of
a blow on his spine, still none of the accused person
showed any mercy, they instead continued with the
assault. The statements of Dr. PW-1 and Dr. PW2, and the
E
post mortem reports of the deceased, Ext. PA and Ext.
PC clearly demonstrate the intentional brutality and intent
of the accused to kill the victims. They caused as many
as 30 injuries on the person of PW4's father and 33
injuries on the person of PW4's mother, resulting in the
F
death of both of them. [Para 12] [290-D-G]
2. Both the deceased had tried to run away, but were
chased by the accused. While 'M' exhorted the others, all
accused persons, particularly accused No. 7, 'Ka',
effectively participated in inflicting injuries on the bodies
G
of the deceased. Thus, a common intention came into
existence at the spur of the moment, even if the same was
not pre-existing. The existence of common object and
intent is not only reflected from the circumstantial
evidence, but is also clearly demonstrated in the
H
280
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 5 S.C.R.
A statement of PW-4 and PW-5, respectively. The offenders,
if have no common intention or object to kill the victim,
they would normally stop assaulting the victim and leave
him in the injured condition when he falls down on the
ground. On the contrary, in the case in hand, all the
B accused, except those acquitted by the High Court, had
participated with a common mind to cause fatal injuries
upon both the parents of PW4. PW-4, in his statement, has
clearly and definitely explained the occurrence, by
attributing specific role to each one of the accused.
c According to him, 'R' inflicted Jaily blow on the legs of
PW4's father. 'M' gave Jaily blow on the head of PW4's
father, which the deceased deflected with his hands. 'K'
gave Jaily blow on the back of PW4's father, whereafter
the victim fell on the ground. Thereafter, 'B' inflicted
0 Kasola blow on the head of PW4's father and finally, all
the other accused started mercilessly inflicting blows on
the person of the PW4's father. [Para 13] [290-H; 291-AE]
3.1. The statement of PW-4 also shows that the
E accused persons had also inflicted injuries on the body
of PW4's mother, with an intention to kill her. The version
put forward by this witness is fully supported by that of
PW-5 and from other documentary evidence placed on
record. The medical evidence completely corroborates
F the story advanced by this witness for the prosecution.
Once, the statement of a witness is found trustworthy
and is duly corroborated by other evidence, there is no
reason for the Court to reject the statement of such
witness, merely on the ground that it was a statement of
G a related or interested witness. [Para 14] [291-E-G]
3.2. In the present case, it is more than clear that PW4 and PW-5 were both present at the time of the incident.
The prior animosity and clashes between the two families
has come on record. In the cross-examination.· no material
H was brought out to the contrary. It is clear that the
STATE OF HARYANA v. SHAKUNTLA AND ORS.
281
presence of PW-4 and PW-5 at the place of occurrence
A
was natural and their statements, are trustworthy,
corroborated by other evidence and do not suffer from
the vice of suspicion or uncertainty. The Court has to give
credence to their statement as they have lost their close
relations and have no reason to falsely implicate the
B
accused persons, who are also their relations. [Paras 17,
19] (292-F-G; 295-F-G]
Mano Dutt & Anr. v. State of U. P. (2012) 4 SCC 79 -
relied on.
Waman & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 7 SCC
295: 2011 (6) SCR 1072; Ja/pat Rai & Ors. v. State of
Haryana JT 2011 8 SC 55; State of Haryana v. Ram Singh
(2002) 2 SCC 426: 2002 (1) SCR 208 - held inapplicable.
c
D
4.1. In the present case, 30 and 33 injuries
respectively had been caused on the bodies of the
deceased, but still, PW-4 and PW-5 have attributed
specific role to each individual accused, particularly with
regard to the grievous injuries caused by them. [Para 23]
E
(297-F-G]
4.2. It is clear that, as per the case of the prosecution,
there were more than five persons assembled at the
incident. The members of this assembly had acted in
furtherance to the common object and the same object
F
was made absolutely clear by the words of accused 'M'
when he exhorted all the others to 'finish' the deceased
persons. (Para 26] (298-G-H; 299-A]
4.3. The intention and object on the part of this group
G
was clear. They had come with the express object of
killing PW4's father and his family members. In view of
the manner in which 'M' exhorted all the others and the
manner in which they acted thereafter, clearly establishes
that their intention was not to inflict injuries simplicitor.
H
282
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 5 S.C.R.
A PW4's father, admittedly, had fallen on the ground.
However, the accused still continued inflicting heavy
blows on him and kept on doing so till he breathed his
last. They did not even spare PW4's mother and inflicted
as many as 33 injuries on her body. Where a person has
B the intention to cause injuries simplicitor to another, he/
she would certainly not inflict 30/33 injuries on the
different parts of the body of the victim, including the
spine. The spine is a very delicate and vital part of the
human body. It, along with the ribs protects all the vital
c organs of the body, the heart and lungs, etc. Powerful
blows on these parts of the body can, in normal course,
result in the death of a person, as has happened in the
instant case. The way in which the crime has been
committed reflects nothing but sheer brutality. The
0 members of the assembly, therefore, were aware that
their acts were going to result in the death of the
deceased. [Para 27) [299-A, B-E]
E
Sarman & Ors. v. State of MP. 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 356
- distinguished.
Ramchandran & Ors. v. State of Kera/a (2011) 9 SCC
257 - referred to.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition and Advanced
F Law Lexicon, 3rdEdition - referred to.
5. PW-4, in his statement, had clearly stated that
accused 'M', 'R', 'K' and one of their other relations, who
was later on identified to be 'Ka', had reached there,
armed with jailies. Even in the FIR, PW4 had made a
G similar statement that one other relative of his, whose
name he did not know, had also come there. Thus, it was
a case where PW-4 had duly identified that person, but
did not know the exact name of that person. Further, it is
true that the witnesses have not attributed any specific
H role to 'Ka', but their statement is clear that all the
STATE OF HARYANA v. SHAKUNTLA AND ORS.
283
accused persons had started inflicting injuries upon the
A
body of the deceased. In other words, being members of
the unlawful assembly, 'Ka', along with others, had also
inflicted injuries upon the deceased, in furtherance to the
common object and thus, would also be liable to be held
guilty accordingly. Another important feature is that
B
recovery of Ext. 11 Jaili was made at the behest of
accused, 'Ka'and was taken into possession vide Ext.
PUA/1. [Para 28] [299-G-H; 300-A-C]
6. The High Court acquitted three accused while
accepting the plea of alibi taken by them. Against the C
judgment of acquittal, onus is on the prosecution to
show that the finding recorded by the High Court is
perverse and requir~s correction by this Court, in
exercise of its powers under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India. An appellate Court must bear in
D
mind that in case of acquittal, there is a double
presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the
presumption of innocence is available to such accused
under the fundamental principles of criminal
jurisprudence, i.e., that every person shall be presumed
E
to be innocent unless proved guilty before the court and
secondly, that a lower court, upon due appreciation of all
evidence has found in favour of his innocence. Merely
because another view is possible, it would be no reason
for this Court to interfere with the order of acquittal. It was
F
for the State to show that the High Court has completely
fallen in error of law or that judgment in relation to these
accused was palpably erroneous, perverse or untenable.
None of these parameters are satisfied in the appeal
preferred by the State against the acquittal of three G
accused. [Paras 36 and 40] [301-G-H; 302-A-C; 304-D-E]
Girja Prasad (Dead) By Lrs. v. State of M.P. (2007) 7
SCC 625: 2007 (9) SCR 483 ; Chandrappa v. State of
Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415: 2007 (2) SCR 630; C. Antony
H
v. K. G. Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC 1 • relied on.
284
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 5 S.C.R.
A
Munshi Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar (2002) 1 SCC
351: 2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 25 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
2011 (6) SCR 1072
held inapplicable Para 14, 15
B
JT 2011 8 SC 55
held inapplicable Para 14
2002 (1) SCR 208
held inapplicable Para 14,16
(2012) 4 sec 79
relied on
Para 18
c
1993 Supp. (2) sec 356 distinguished
Para 22
(2011) 9 sec 257
referred to
Para 24
2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 25
referred to
Para 32
D
2007 (9) SCR 483
relied on
Para 37
2007 (2) SCR 630
relied on
Para 38
(2003) 1 sec 1
relied on
Para.39
E
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 658 of 2008 etc.
F
From the Judgment & Order dated 26.07.2007 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal
No. 700-D/1997.
WITH
Crl. Appeal Nos. 1005 and 1707 of 2008.
S.B. Sanyal, R.K. Das, V. Giri, Manjit Singh, AAG, C.V.
Subba Rao, Dinesh Chander Yadav, Vibhuti Sushant Gupta for
G Dr. Kailash Chand, Tarjit Singh, Kamal Mohan Gupta for Naresh
Bakshi, A.V. Palli, Atul Sharma, Anupam Raina, Rekha Palli
for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. We may notice the case of
STATE OF HARYANA v. SHAKUNTLA AND ORS.
285
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
the prosecution in brief at the very outset of this judgment. On
A
3rd July, 1994, Manohar Lal (deceased) who had retired from
service as Subedar in the Indian Army, had taken his wife, Smt.
Sushila (deceased) to Delhi for her treatment as she was
complaining of pain in the chest. Naresh Kumar, PW-4 is the
eldest son of Manohar Lal. All were residents of Village
B
Nandrampurbas, Haryana.
2. In the evening, wh~n PW-4 was putting earth on a ditch
in front of his house, accused Matadin and Rajender came
there and abused and beat him. However, PW-4 did not lodge
any police report in this regard. On 5th July, 1994, Manohar Lal
C
and his wife Sushila returned from Delhi at about 9 AM. At that
time PW-4, his sister Rajesh, PW-5 and their brother Suresh
were sitting at the gate of their house. When Manohar Lal and
Sushila were enquiring about the incident that had taken place
on 3rd July, 1994, all the nine accused, namely, Matadin,
D
Rajender, Krishan, Bhim Singh, Shakuntla, Premwati, Kailash,
Sarjeeta and Laxmi came tllere armed with lathis and other
deadly weapons. Laxmi opened the assault by giving an iron
rod blow which hit Sushila at her leg. Thereafter, Matadin gave
a Jaily blow on the head of Manohar Lal but Manohar Lal took
E
it at his hand. To save themselves, Manohar Lal and Sushila
started running towards the house of Guwarias but the accused
chased them. Then Krishan gave a Jaily blow which hit
Manohar Lal at his back as a result of which Manohar Lal fell
down. Bhim Singh gave a Kasola blow at his head and then
F
they all started beating Manohar Lal. Thereafter, all the accused
opened attack on Sushila and beat her mercilessly. Ultimately,
considering both of them dead, all the accused persons ran
away towards village Silarpur. When the children of Manohar
Lal went near their parents, they found that Manohar Lal had
died on the spot, but Sushila was still alive and unconscious.
G
Krishan, son of Richpal, took Sushila to the Civil Hospital,
Rewari in a Maruti Van, but she was declared brought dead
by the doctors there.
3. PW-4 who had left for the Police Station, Dharuhera,
H
286
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 5 S.C.R.
A leaving behind PW-5 and his younger brother near the body of
Manohar Lal. On the way near village Alawarpur, he met Subey
Singh, Sub-Inspector who recorded the statement of PW-4 vide
Ext. PH. After making endorsement to the Police Station, an
FIR vide Exh. PH/1, was registered in the Police Station,
B Dharuhera. The process of criminal law was set into motion
against the accused persons on the basis of the statement, Ext.
PH.
4. It has come on record that the deceased Manohar Lal
had, after retirement, been working in the Indian Army in the
C Defence Supply Corps (DSC) at Defence Colony, Delhi. As
afore-noted, he had taken his wife for medical treatment to
Delhi. In the evening, the accused Matadin and Rajender had
beaten up PW-4. Moreover, in the year 1986 also, Rajender
and Matadin had beaten up Manohar Lal and his wife Sushila,
D for which they were also facing criminal trial.
5. In furtherance to registration of the above-mentioned
FIR, on 10th July, 1994, all the accused were produced before
the Investigating Officer and were arrested. Upon interrogation,
they made disclosure statements on the basis of which
E weapons of offence were recovered. Then, the investigation
was handed over to Udai Singh, SHO (PW-17), who after
completion of investigation submitted the report to the court of
competent jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 {for short 'the CrPC'). Having been
F committed to the Court of Sessions, the accused were charged
with the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with
Section 149, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the
IPC") and Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC, to which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. They were tried in
G accordance with law and, finally, vide judgment of the Trial Court
dated 22nd August, 1997, all the nine accused were held guilty
for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 148
as well as the offence punishable under Section 325/302 both
read with Section 149 IPC. The accused were awarded the
H following sentences, which were to run concurrently:
STATE OF HARYANA v. SHAKUNTLA AND ORS.
287
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
"2. After going through the statements of the accused
A
persons and also the submissions made by their counsel
and also the submissions made by the learned PP for the
State, I sentence all the accused persons to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year also to pay
a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine
B
the accused shall undergo RI for a period of three months,
for the commission of offence punishable under section
148 Indian Penal Code. I again sentence all the accused
persons to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in C
default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo further
rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, for the
commission of offence punishable under section 325 read
with section 149 Indian Penal Code. I also sentence all the
accused persons to "imprisonment for life" and also to pay 0
a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each in default of payment of fine,
the accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 2 years, for the commission of offence punishable
under section 302 read with section 149 Indian Penal
Code. All the sentences to run concurrently. Case property
stands confiscated to the State and be disposed of after
E
the period of limitation. File be consigned to records."
6. Aggrieved from the judgment of the Trial Court, the
accused preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High
Court, vide its judgment dated 26th July, 2007, upheld the
F
conviction and sentence of accused Nos. 1 to 4 and 9 while
acquitting the accused Nos. 5, 6 and 8 i.e. Shakuntla, Premwati
and Sarjeeta. It also upheld the conviction and order of sentence
in relation to the accused no. 7 Kailash.
7. The present three appeals have been filed against the G
said judgment of the High Court.
8. Criminal Appeal No. 658 of 2008 has been preferred
by the State of Haryana against the order of acquittal of three
accused namely Shakuntla, Premwati and Sarjeeta, Criminal
Appeal No. 1005 of 2008 has been preferred by five convicted
H
288
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 5 S.C.R.
A accused namely, Matadin, Rajender, Krishan, Bhim Singh and
Laxmi and Criminal Appeal No. 1707 of 2008 has been
preferred by the accused, Kailash against dismissal of their
respective appeals by the High Court. As all the three appeals
are from one and the same judgment, therefore, these appeals
B shall be disposed of by a common judgment.
c
D
E
F
G
H
9. The contentions raised on behalf of the accused/
appellant before this Court are :
a)
Taking the facts and circumstances of the case and
the evidence cumulatively, an offence under Part I
or Part II of Section 304, IPC is made out and not
an offence punishable under Section 302 of the
IPC.
b)
There was neither common intention amongst the
members of the assembly to cause death of the
deceased persons nor any common object.
c)
The witnesses examined by the prosecution are
witnesses related to the deceased and, as such,
the Court could not have relied upon the testimony
of such interested witnesses in convicting the
accused.
d)
In fact, there was no assembly, much less an
unlawful assembly, so as to attract the provisions
of Section 149 IPC and the accused persons have
been incorrectly charged and convicted for the said
offences.
e)
The Courts have erred in law in not giving the same
weightage and significance to the defence
witnesses as has been given to the prosecution
witnesses. Relying upon the defence witnesses, the
Court ought to have accepted the plea of alibi put
forward by the accused. Upon the correct
application of principles of appreciation of
evidence, the accused should have been given the
STATE OF HARYANA v. SHAKUNTLA AND ORS.
289
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
benefit of doubt keeping in view the fact that the
A
other three accused had been acquitted by the High
Court.
f)
In Criminal Appeal No. 1707 of 2008, accused No.
7, Kailash was neither named in the FIR nor was
alleged to have caused any injury. There existed no
B
common object and the material witnesses had not
been examined. Being young boy of 23 years, he
had been falsely involved in the crime and, thus, was
entitled to acquittal.
c
10. While refuting these contentions, the State has made
the following contentions in the appeal preferred by it against
the acquittal of three accused :
a)
There was no provocation, but still, the accused
persons together assaulted the deceased persons o
and continued to assault them till they were certain
that the victims were dead.
b)
c)
In fact, Manohar Lal had died on the spot while
Sushila died on the way to the hospital. The number
of injuries found upon the bodies of the deceased
i.e. 30 and 33, respectively, clearly show that the
intention was to kill and not to merely hurt or cause
injury to the deceased persons.
From the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5, it is clear
that the accused persons constituted an unlawful
assembly and they had the common intention and
object of killing the deceased.
E
F
11. On a proper appreciation of the evidence placed on
record, it is clear that in the circumstances, one could hardly
G
expect any other evidence to be available. It would only be the
family members who would be present at the place of
occurrence of the crime and only such interested persons could
depose with regard to commission of the crime. The
statements of these witnesses are trustworthy and offer the
H
290
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 5 S.C.R.
A graphic eye account of the exact events, during the course of
occurrence. Clearly, there was common object among the
members of the unlawful assembly to somehow do away with
Manohar Lal and his wife Sushila.
12. It is a settled principle of the law of evidence that it is
B
not the quantity, but the quality of evidence that has to be taken
into consideration by the Court while deciding such matters. As
already noticed, even in the year 1986, Rajender and Matadin
had beaten Manohar Lal and his wife, for which they were also
facing criminal trial. Again, they had abused and beaten
C Naresh, PW-4 on 3rd July, 1994, when he was putting earth in
the street in front of his house. Thereafter, on 5th July, 1994,
this unfortunate incident had taken place. When on 5th July,
1994, Manohar Lal and his wife returned from Delhi, even
before they entered their house and when they were discussing
D the incident that took place on 3rd July, 1994 with their teenage
children, the accused persons, armed with weapons, came
there and started assaulting Manohar Lal and his wife. This
clearly shows that Matadin and the other accused had been
looking for an opportunity to fight with Manohar Lal and his
E family members, on one pretext or the other. Matadin exhorted
the others to 'finish them', upon which the accused persons
started assaulting the victims and continued till both Manohar
Lal and his wife Sushila died. The circumstance deserving the
attention of this Court is that, even when Manohar Lal fell on
F
the ground as a result of a blow on his spine, still none of the
accused person showed any mercy, they instead continued
with the assault. The statements of Dr. G.S. Yadav, PW-1 and
Dr. Kamal Mehra, PW2, and the post mortem reports of the
deceased, Ext. PA and E?'t. PC clearly demonstrate the
G intentional brutality and intent of the accused to kill the victims.
They caused as many as 30 injuries on the person of Manohar
Lal and 33 injuries on the person of Sushila, resulting in the
death of both of them.
13. Both the deceased had tried to run away, but were
H chased by the accused. While Manohar Lal exhorted the others,
STATE OF HARYANA v. SHAKUNTLA AND ORS.
291
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
all accused persons, particularly accused No. 7, Kailash,
effectively participated in inflicting injuries on the bodies of the
deceased. Thus, a common intention came into existence at
the spur of the moment, even if the same was not pre-existing.
The existence of common object and intent is not only reflected
from the circumstantial evidence, but is also clearly
demonstrated in the statement of PW-4 and PW-5,
respectively. The offenders, if have no common intention or
object to kill the victim, they would normally stop assaulting the
victim and leave him in the injured condition when he falls down
A
B
on the ground. On the contrary, in the case in hand, all the
C
accused, except those acquitted by the High Court, had
participated with a common mind to cause fatal injuries upon
both Manohar Lal and Sushila. PW-4, in his statement, has
clearly and definitely explained the occurrence, by attributing
specific role to each one of the accused. According to him,
Rajender inflicted Jaily blow on the legs of Manohar Lal.
Matadin gave Jaily blow on the head of Manohar Lal, which the
deceased deflected with his hands. Krishan gave Jaily blow on
D
the back of Manohar Lal, whereafter the victim fell on the ground.
Thereafter, Bhim inflicted Kasola blow on the head of the
deceased Manohar Lal and finally, all the other accused started
mercilessly inflicting blows on the person of the deceased
Manohar Lal.
14. The statement of PW-4 also shows that the accused
persons had also inflicted injuries on the body of Sushila, with
an intention to kill her. The version put forward by this witness
E
F
is fully supported by that of PW-5 and from other documentary
evidence placed on record. The medical evidence completely
corroborates the story advanced by this witness for the
prosecution. Once, the statement of a witness is found
trustworthy and is duly corroborated by other evidence, there
G
is no reason for the Court to reject the statement of such
witness, merely on the ground that it was a statement of a
related or interested witness. The learned counsel appearing
for the accused relied upon the judgments of this Court in the
case of Waman & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra [(2011) 7 SCC
H
292
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 5 S.C.R.
A
295], Ja/pat Rai & Ors. v. State of Haryana [JT 2011 8 SC
55] and State of Haryana v. Ram Singh [(2002) 2 SCC 426],
to contend that the statement of a related or interested
witnesses should not be relied upon and made the sole basis
of conviction by the Court.
B
15. Firstly, none of these judgments state this principle as
an s;ibsolute proposition of law. Each judgment deals with its
own facts. In the case of Waman (supra), the Court clearly held
that if the evidence of the related witnesses is found to be
consistent and true, the same cannot be discarded. Similarly,
C in the case of Jalpat Rai (supra), the Court noticed that the
presence of the witnesses at the time of incident would not
guarantee their truthfulness. The question to be examined by
the Court is whether their testimony is trustworthy an(! reliable
insofar as complicity of the appellants in the crime is
D concerned, or whether they have tried to implicate the innocent
along with the guilty.
16. In the case of Ram Sin.gh's (supra), the circumstances
were totally different. In that case, the interested and related
witnesses were not only examined as witnesses to the incident
E but they were also witnesses to the arrests and in view of these
facts, the Court felt that there existed a doubt about the
trustworthiness of these witnesses, which must go to the benefit
of the accused.
F
17. All these cases, in fact, would have no application to
the present case. In the present case, it is more than clear that
PW-4 and PW-5 were both present at the time of the incident.
The prior animosity and clashes between the two families has
come on record. In the cross-examination, no material was
brought out to the contrary. On the other hand, there seems to
G be no challenge to vital facts. The facts of the cited cases being
different and there being hardly any challenge to the vital
aspects of the present case, ratio decidendi of those judgments
would hardly further the case of the accused.
H
18. A Bench of this Court in the case of Mano Dutt & Anr.
STATE OF HARYANA v. SHAKUNTLA AND ORS.
293
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
v. State of UP. [(2012) 4 SCC 79], (to which one of us, Hon.
A
Swatanter Kumar, J. was a member), while dealing with the
issue of credibility of testimony by interested witnesses, held
as under:
"19. Another contention raised on behalf of the accused/
appellants is that only family members of the deceased
B
were examined as witnesses and they being interested
witnesses cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the
prosecution did not examine any independent witnesses
and, therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish its
case beyond reasonable doubt. This argument is again
C
without much substance. Firstly, there is no bar in law in
examining family members, or any other person, as
witnesses. More often than not, in such cases involving
family members of both sides, it is a member of the family
or a friend who comes to rescue the injured. Those alone
D
are the people who take the risk of sustaining injuries by
jumping into such a quarrel and trying to defuse the crisis.
Besides, when the statement of witnesses, who are
relatives, or are parties known to the affected party, is
credible, reliable, trustworthy, admissible in accordance
E
with the law and corroborated by other witnesses or
documentary evidence of the prosecution, there would
hardly be any reason for the Court to reject such evidence
merely on the ground that the witness was family member
or interested witness or person known to the affected party.
F
There can be cases where it would be but inevitable to
examine such witnesses, because, as the events
occurred, they were the natural or the only eye witness
available to give the complete version of the incident. In
this regard, we may refer to the judgments of this Court,
G
in the case of Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, [(2007)
14 SCC 150]. This Court drew a clear distinction between
a chance witness and a natural witness. Both these
witnesses have to be relied upon subject to their evidence
being trustworthy and admissible in accordance with the
law. This Court, in the said judgment, held as under:
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
294
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 5 S.C.R.
"28. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that
Indian legal system does not insist on plurality of
witnesses. Neither the legislature (Section 134 of
the Evidence Act, 1872) nor the judiciary mandates
that there must be particular number of witnesses
to record an order of conviction against the
accused. Our legal system has always laid
emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence
~ather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of
witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court
to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and
record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the
accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses
if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence.
The bald contention that no conviction can be
recorded in case of a solitary eyewitness, therefore,
has no force and must be negatived.
29. It was then contended that the only eyewitness,
PW 6 Sopan was none other than the son of the
deceased. He was, therefore, "highly interested"
witness and his deposition should, therefore, be
discarded as it has not been corroborated in
material particulars by other witnesses. We are
unable to uphold the contention. In our judgment, a
witness who is a relative of the deceased or victim
of a crime cannot be characterised as "interested".
The term "interested" postulates that the witness
has some direct or indirect "interest" in having th~
accused somehow or the other convicted due to
animus or for some other oblique motive."
20. It will be useful to make a reference of another judgment
of this Court, in the case of Satbir Singh & Ors. v. State
of Uttar Pradesh, [(2009) 13 SCC 790], where this Court
held as under:
"26. It is now a well-settled principle of law that only
because the witnesses are not independent ones
STATE OF HARYANA v. SHAKUNTLA AND ORS.
295
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
may not by itself be a ground to discard the A
prosecution case. If the prosecution case has been
supported by the witnesses and no cogent reason
has been shown to discredit their statements, a
judgment of conviction can certainly be based
thereupon. Furthermore, as noticed hereinbefore, at
B
least Dhum Singh (PW 7) is an independent
witness. He had no animus against the accused.
False implication of the accused at his hand had
not been suggested, far less established."
21. Again in a very recent judgment in the case of Ba/raje C
@ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 6 SCC 673],
this Court stated that when the eye-witnesses are stated
to be interested and inimically disposed towards the
accused, it has to be noted that it would not be proper to
conclude that they would shield the real culprit and rope in
D
innocent persons. The truth or otherwise of the evidence
has to be weighed pragmatically. The Court would be
required to analyse the evidence of related witnesses and
those witnesses who are inimically disposed towards the
accused. But if after careful analysis and scrutiny of their
E
evidence, the version given by the witnesses appears to
be clear, cogent and credible, there is no reason to
discard the same."
19. When we examine the facts of the present case in light
of the above principles, it is clear that the presence of PW-4
F
and PW-5 at the place of occurrence was natural and their
statements, are trustworthy, corroborated by other evidence and
do not suffer from the vice of suspicion or uncertainty. The Court
has to give credence to their statement as they have lost their
close relations and have no reason to falsely implicate the G
accused persons, who are also their relations. Thus, we find
no merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the
accused.
20. Again, while relying on the judgment of Waman (supra)
the learned counsel has contended that the accused persons
H
296
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 5 S.C.R.
A
were not members of unlawful assembly and they had neither
knowledge nor intention to commit any crime in prosecution of
a common object.
B
c
D
E
F
G
"40. Even otherwise, A-12 was also charged under Section
149 IPC as a member of unlawful assembly with the
requisite common object and knowledge. Inasmuch as the
prosecution evidence insofar as women accused is not
cogent, their acquittal cannot be applied to A-12 who was
in the compar.y of A-1 to A-6. As mentioned above, apart
from conviction under Section 302 Dilip, A-12 was
convicted under Section 149. Section 149 creates a
specific offence and deals with punishment of the offence.
The only thing is that whenever the court convicts any
person or persons of any offence with the aid of Section
149, a clear finding regarding the common object of the
assembly must be given and the evidence disclosed must
show not only the nature of the common object but also that
the object was unlawful. In order to attract Section 149 it
must be shown that the incriminating act was done to
accomplish the common object of unlawful assembly.