9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (2) TMI 468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on principle. When the election is fought on personal level, inevitably it leads to bitterness and factions in the village. The village in taluq Dhandhuka appears to be no exception to this rule. It was alleged by the prosecution that there were two groups in that village-one led by accused No. 1 and the other by Devji. These two groups hd cases and counter cases against each other. In the election held accused No. 1 was elected as Sarpanch. He defeated Devji who was previously the Sarpanch of the village. Jadav who was of the followers of Devji, had filed a chapter case against the accused. That was in the court of Dhandhuka. On January 6, 1979, Jadav and accused No. 1 after attending the Court proceedings were returning to the village Jalila by bus. The bus arrived at the bus stand at Jalila at about 5.15 or 5.30 P.M. It was further alleged by the prosecution that at the relevant time accused Nos. 2, 3, and 7 were present at the bus stop. They were in an extremely bellicose mood. They were duly armed. Accused No. 1 got down from the bus, but accused No. 3 poked his spear in the bus, where Jadav was sitting near the window. They were also alleged to have uttered some threatening ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re of the prosecution to examine independent witnesses who were present at the place of the incident. The counsel said that it was a busy bus stand where number of people were present at the time of the incident, but the prosecution has failed to examine anyone of such witnesses. The prosecution only examined witnesses having pronounced animus against the accused and therefore, the prosecution version does not inspire confidence in the absence of evidence from independent witnesses. His second contention relates to the numerous contradictions in the evidence of Devji, particularly as against his first statement recorded by the Executive Magistrate and a subsequent statement recorded by the police. According to the counsel, those contradictions lead to the inference that there was suppression of truth in regard to the actual incident as well as the accused who perpetrated the crime. 8. Before we consider the contentions urged for the appellants, we may recall that these are appeals by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution. Jf conclusions of the courts below are supported by acceptable evidence, this Court will not exercise its overriding powers to interfere with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed from vision, would negate the prosecution case or substantially discredit or impair it or (4) some vital piece of evidence which would tilt the balance in favour of the convict has been overlooked, disregarded, or wrongly discarded. 10. In the light of these principles, we may now consider the first contention urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants. The contention relates to the failure of the prosecution to examine independent witnesses. The High Court has examined this contention but did not find any infirmity in the investigation. It is no doubt true that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness to the incident that took place at the bus stand. There must have been several of such witnesses. But the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the contradictions in the evidence of Devji (PW-4) as against his previous statement ; one recorded by the Executive Magistrate (Exh. 66) and another by the police during the investigation. We have, however, also examined the relevant evidence. It is true that there are many contradictions in the evidence of Devji. He has not attributed overt acts to individual accused in his statement before the police whereas he has attributed such overt acts in his evidence before the court. But that is no ground to reject his entire testimony. It must not be forgotten that he was a victim of the assault. Fortunately he has survived. He must, therefore, be considered as the best eye witness. The Court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The Court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate the entire material on record by exclud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as frightened after seeing the accused at the bus stand at Jalila. He did not get down from the bus. He proceeded further to Barwala Police Station and gave the complaint at 5.50 P.M. on the same day. His complaint Exh. 17 was against A-2, A-3 and A-7 in respect of what they did with their weapons at the said bus stand. According to him, he saw A-2, A-3 and A-7 armed with Dhariya, pears and battle axe. Therein he has stated that one of them attacked him with the handle of the pear and another asked him to get down from the bus so that they could kill him. He has asserted the same in his evidence before the Court. The presence of these three accused at the bus stand armed with deadly weapons could not therefore be doubted. The next earlier statement was that of Devji, (PW-4) which was recorded as dying declaration Exh. 66. He has specifically named accused 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 as those attacked him. He has not mentioned the names of the accused who attacked his brother, Trikam. The accused No. 5 and 6 do not figure in the complaint Exh. 17 made by Jada v. We can, therefore, conclude that accused No. 5 and 6 must have come later and attacked only Devji. The benefit of doubt may theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
