REPORTABLE        

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1209 OF 2007

Prahalad Patel       .... Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh               .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, J.

1)   This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  final  judgment  and  

order dated 14.03.2005 passed by the High Court of Madhya  

Pradesh  at  Jabalpur  in  Criminal  Appeal  No.  774  of  1996  

whereby  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  upheld  the  

judgment dated 26.02.1996 passed by the  learned Sessions  

Judge, Sagar, in Sessions Case No. 196 of 1995 convicting the  

appellant herein under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code  

(in  short  ‘the  IPC’)  and  sentenced  him  to  undergo  

1

imprisonment  for  life  and  fine  of  Rs.1,000/-,  in  default,  to  

further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.   

2) Brief Facts:

(a) In Village Chandpur, the accused Prahalad Patel,  while  

cultivating his land had thrown bushes on the path.  Daulat-

the deceased objected to it and told the accused not to throw  

the  bushes  on  the  path,  because  of  this,  there  was  an  

altercation between the  deceased and the accused.   Due to  

this  incident,  the  accused  developed  a  grudge  against  the  

deceased.   On  01.02.1995,  at  around  12  hours,  when  the  

deceased was breaking stones in the mine and one Nanhebhai  

(PW-1) was collecting it nearby, at that time, accused Prahalad  

Patel came there with an axe and inflicted several injuries to  

the  deceased by hitting  him at  his  right  leg,  left  hand,  left  

shoulder and on back of his head, due to which, he fell down  

on  the  earth  and  blood  started  oozing  out.   One  Gudda-

brother of the accused was also present in the mine but, out of  

fear,  Nanhebhai  (PW-1)  and Gudda did  not  try  to  save  the  

deceased.  Thereafter, Nanhebhai (PW-1) rushed to the house  

of Daulat and narrated the whole incident to his brother and  

2

mother.  They went to the mine and brought Daulat.  He was  

taken  to  Police  Station  Rahli  but  by  that  time  he  became  

unconscious.  The report of the incident (Ex. P-1) was lodged  

by Nanhebhai (PW-1) in the Police Station.  Thereafter, Daulat  

was sent for medical examination to the hospital at Rahli.  Dr.  

Gupta  (PW-9)  examined  him  and  issued  a  report  (Ex.P-10)  

mentioning various injuries.  On the advise of the doctor, in an  

unconscious  condition,  he  was  taken  to  Medical  College  

Hospital at Jabalpur for further treatment.  During treatment,  

he succumbed to injuries.  The dead body was sent for post-

mortem and Dr. A.K.Jain (PW-16) conducted the post-mortem  

and prepared a report (Ex. P-21).  According to him, the cause  

of death was due to cut and other injuries.  

(b)  During  investigation,  police  prepared  a  spot  map  and  

seized the blood stained sand and simple sand from the place  

of incident.  The accused was taken into custody and the axe  

was recovered at his instance.  On completion of investigation,  

charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 302  

IPC.   

3

(c)   The  accused  denied  having  committed  any  offence  and  

stated  that  he  had  enmity  with  Nanhebhai  (PW-1)  because  

there is a case pending against the brother of Nanhebhai for  

causing  injuries  to  his  father  and,  therefore,  he  falsely  

implicated him.   

(d)  The Sessions Judge, on consideration of the materials, by  

judgment dated 26.02.1996, accepted the prosecution’s case  

and found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under  

Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment  

for life and a fine of Rs.1,000/-.   

(e)  Being aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge, the  

accused preferred an appeal before the High Court of Madhya  

Pradesh at Jabalpur.  The Division Bench of the High Court,  

by  its  impugned  judgment  dated  14.03.2005,  upheld  the  

conclusion arrived at by the Sessions Judge and confirmed the  

conviction and sentence of the accused.  

f)  Questioning  the  same,  the  accused  had  filed  the  above  

appeal before this Court after obtaining special leave  

4

3) Heard  Mr.  D.B.  Goswami,  learned  counsel  for  the  

accused/appellant and Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned counsel  

for the respondent-State.  

4) There is no dispute that there was an altercation between  

the  accused  and  the  deceased  on  a  petty  issue  and  the  

accused  nurtured  grudge  against  the  deceased.   On  

01.02.1995, when the deceased was working in the mine, the  

accused inflicted several injuries to the deceased with an axe.  

Immediately after the occurrence, Nanhebhai (PW-1), who was  

working in the same mine informed his family members about  

the incident and they took the injured to the Police Station  

and (PW-1) made a statement about the incident which has  

been marked as (Ex. P-1).  When the deceased was taken to  

Medical  College Hospital  at Jabalpur,  Dr.  A.K. Jain (PW-16)  

certified that he succumbed to his injuries.  The evidence of  

eye-witness (PW-1) and his report (Ex. P-1), the statement of  

Dr. A.K. Jain (PW-16) and his report (Ex. P-21) clearly prove  

that the death of Daulat was homicidal.  

5) Learned counsel  appearing for the appellant contended  

that  there  was  discrepancy  in  the  number  of  injuries  as  

5

recorded by Dr. Gupta (PW-9) and by Dr. A.K. Jain (PW-16).  It  

is true that the doctor who conducted the autopsy found as  

many as eight injuries which are as follows:-

“(i) Repaired wound present over back of right shoulder top 4”  

long.

(ii) Incised wound back of neck at the level of C7 T1 1x½x½.

(iii) Repaired wound over the back of skull left side of occiput 1”  

long transversely.

(iv) Repaired  wound  present  over  the  Cervico-temporal  region  

left side vertical 3” long.

(v) Chop wound present over left  eye brow region cutting the  

skin muscle and underlying bone 2”x1”x1”.

(vi) Chop wound on the upper part left  to forearm near elbow  

cutting the ulna and lower part of humerus bone 4” x2” x bone  

deep.

(vii) Repaired wound present over the right knee and  

(viii) Multiple small abrasion present over the face below the left  

eye and chin.”

It is equally true that in (Ex. P-10), medical examination report  

prepared  by  Dr.  Gupta  (PW-9),  all  the  above-mentioned  

injuries have not been noted.  However, as rightly observed by  

the High Court, sometimes some injuries may not be visible  

6

after passage of time.  In fact, this suggestion was not put to  

the doctors  concerned.   Whatever may be,  as analyzed and  

concluded by the High Court, cause of death in this case was  

cranio cerebral injuries which have been found by both the  

doctors insofar as fatal injuries are concerned and, for this,  

there  is  no  discrepancy  between the  two reports.   We  also  

verified both the reports  and we are  satisfied  that  the  said  

discrepancy is not material to the prosecution case.  

6) The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of (PW-1),  

eye-witness to the incident.  (PW-1) also narrated the earlier  

incident  about  throwing  bushes  on  the  path-way  to  the  

agricultural field and the altercation between the accused and  

the deceased and also of  the  fact  that  he  accompanied the  

deceased  to  the  mine,  there  is  no  reason  to  disbelieve  his  

version.  Apart from this, it was (PW-1) who took the injured to  

the hospital and made a complaint in the Police Station.  In  

addition to the same, the prosecution has also examined Kallu  

(PW-2)-brother of the deceased and (PW-7)-another brother of  

the deceased.  Both of them, in their evidence, have affirmed  

that (PW-1) had come to their house and informed them that  

7

Prahalad  Patel-the  accused  assaulted  Daulat  with  an  axe.  

They further narrated that Daulat was rushed to the Hospital  

and on the way, (PW-1) made a complaint to the police.  The  

evidence of (PW-1) and the corroborative statements of PWs 2  

and 7 support the prosecution case.  Though, PWs 2 and 7 are  

brothers of the deceased, relationship is not a factor to affect  

credibility of a witness.  In a series of decisions, this court has  

accepted the above principle [vide   Israr  vs. State of U.P.  

(2005) 9 SCC 616 and S. Sudershan Reddy vs. State of A.P.  

,  (2006) 10 SCC 163 = AIR 2006 SC 2716].  Their evidence  

fully  corroborates  with  the  evidence  of  (PW-1)  about  the  

manner of occurrence and he witnessed the same.

7) We have already noted that Dr.  A.K.  Jain (PW-16)  has  

observed that  the  death  was due to  the  injuries  sustained.  

The weapon of offence, namely, axe was seized at the instance  

of  the  accused.   The  report  from  the  Forensic  Science  

Laboratory (Ex. P-17) shows that the blood found on the axe  

was human blood.  

8) It  is  settled  law  that  when  the  trial  Court  and  the  

appellate Court, on proper appreciation of evidence by relying  

8

on  acceptable  materials,  arrived  at  a  conclusion,  in  the  

absence of perversity in such a conclusion, interference by this  

Court  exercising  jurisdiction  under  Article  136  of  the  

Constitution is  not  warranted.   Considering the  evidence of  

(PW-1) and additional testimony of PWs 2 and 7 coupled with  

doctors’  evidence  and  seizure  of  the  weapon  and  the  FSL  

report,  we  hold  that  the  prosecution  has  proved  its  case  

beyond doubt against the accused and the same was rightly  

considered by the Sessions Judge and affirmed by the Division  

Bench of the High Court.  We do not find any legal ground for  

interference.

9) Consequently,  the  appeal  fails  and  the  same  is  

dismissed.       

  ...…………….…………………… ……J.                                 

         (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

  …....…………………………………J.    (H.L. GOKHALE)  

NEW DELHI; MARCH 2, 2011.                    

9

1