CASE BRIEFS
1. Chikkarangaiah & Ors v. State of Karnataka
- Scope of Article 136 reiterated, Supreme Court will normally not enter into reappraisal or
review of evidence unless the trial court or High Court is shown to have committed an error of law or
procedure and conclusions arrived at by them are perverse. Supreme Court may interfere where
wrong inference of law is made.
- Delay in transmitting the FIR and its reaching the Magistrate is not fatal in all cases – Genesis
of the complaint has to be considered and its promptness.
Important Sections –
Indian Evidence Act – Section 3, 101-103, 114
IPC – Section 326 r/w Section 149, 302, 307
CrPC – Section 154, 157, 378, 386
Article 136 of the Indian Constitution
2. Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab
- Establishment of common intention with the co-accused
- Prejudice caused to a person by omission of framing of charges has to be proved by the
person alleging such prejudice – the appellant has failed in doing so.
- Inconsistency between the opinion of doctor as to how injuries may have been caused –
(Reliability of Medical Negligence)
- Relevancy of Motive
Important Sections –
IPC – Section 34, 109, 302 r/w s.34,
Indian Evidence Act – Section 45, 59, 155, 114
CrPC – Section 211, 215, 217, 222, 464/465
3. Kuriakose and anr. V. State of Kerala [1994 Supp (1) SCC 602
In this case the accused caused serious knife injuries on vital parts of two unarmed people which
resulted in their instantaneous death and this event was witnessed clearly by eyewitnesses.
As the murderous assault is established by clear evidences of eyewitnesses it will not be necessary to
investigate the motive behind such commission of offence. (Para 11)
No plea for right to private defence taken under s. 313 CrPC. High Court held that No mischief was
committed by either of the deceased and there was no occasion to inflict knife injuries on vital parts
for an alleged interference with a right of pathway. It was held that nature of such injuries negatives
any just plea for right to self defence. Convicted under section 302 IPC. Supreme Court upheld the
order and dismissed the appeal (Para 9 and 11)
4. Majju & Anr v. Sate Of Madhya Pradesh (2001) 9 SCC 449
- The scope of evidence appreciation. The court held there were medical certificates of the
witnessed examined which proved their presence at place of occurrence. Therefore, the evidence of
witness was not infirmity. (Para 5)
- The conflict of medical opinion with the first examination giving detailed information about the
wounds being deep while the postmortem report stated wounds in haphazard manner. The court
considered first report. (Para 6)
- Final contention was that the occurrence was a free fight between two groups and should be
charged under S.326 of IPC. However, the court held that the evidence was strong and consistent,
and the acts were described in the first information report as well. Therefore, the appellants were
held guilty under S.302. (Para 7)
Important Sections
IPC- S.302, 148, 323, 341 r/w 149
Evidence Act- S.45
6. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rakesh Kumar
On 13-1-2000, at about 10.30 p.m., when PWs 1 to 3, one 5 and the deceased (all friends) were
having a party in PW 3's house, the accused knocked at the door, upon which, it was opened by S.
The respondent- accused entered the room and asked as to who had called his name. Being so asked,
PW 1 stated that nobody had called him and the respondent was asked to leave the room. While
going out of the room, the respondent further told PW 1 to make the deceased understand
otherwise his head would be smashed. Saying so, the respondent left the room. Thereafter, they
bolted the room from inside and danced till 12 to 12.30 a.m. in the midnight when the deceased
opened the door to go out for urination. As soon as the deceased stepped out, he was stabbed by
the respondent- accused with a sharp-edged weapon in the chest. Thereafter the accused fled away
before their attempt to nab him. PW 1 at that stage asked S to press the chest of the deceased so as
to control the bleeding. He also brought cotton from the nearby house and gave first aid to the
deceased.. He also rushed out to arrange for a three-wheeler. The deceased was than taken to the
hospital where he died at around 1.30 a.m. The High Court by the impugned order set aside the
order of conviction passed by the Sessions Court for offences under Section 302 IPC.
Allowing the appeal,
Held:
PWs 1 to 3 are the natural witnesses who have categorically deposed about the involvement of the
accused in the incident. The bloodstained knife was also recovered at the instance of the accused
from his house on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the respondent-accused. (Para 28)
The trial court found that the statements given by all the three witnesses corroborated each other on
material particulars, that the flow of their version appeared to be quite natural and that there was no
discrepancy. (Para 13)
7. State of Maharashtra Versus Bharat Fakira Dhiwar [(2002) 1 SCC 622]
• Scope of child witness where it is not necessary that child witness is not always to be liable
to be rejected. (Section 118, Evidence Act, 1872)
• Trial court imposed death sentence on the accused but the high court acquitted him because
of the case of ‘rarest of the rare’ case and hence he was given life imprisonment.
• Important Sections:
1. Indian Evidence Act, 1872: S. 27, 118,
2. IPC, 1860: S. 201, 302, 363, 376
8. Surender Singh Versus State of Haryana [(2006) 9 SCC 247]
• It established concurrent findings of the fact and the guidelines for the same. (Para 4)
• Every discrepancy cannot be treated as fatal to the prosecution case. Discrepancy which
does not after the prosecution case materially, does not create infirmity.
• Important Section:
1. Article 136, Constitution of India
2. IPC, 1860: S. 392, 394, 397
Name of the Relevant
Facts Legal Issue Ratio
Judgement Laws
Chikkarangaiah (Para 4 to 9) -The scope of Indian - Scope of Article 136
& Ors v. State of Property dispute Article 136 of Evidence Act reiterated, Supreme
Karnataka between the the Constitution – Section 3, Court will normally not
(2009) 17 SCC accused and the of India and 101-103, enter into reappraisal or
497 deceased and his when can the 114 review of evidence unless
brother. Decree Supreme Court the trial court or High
Corum- 2 Judge in favour of the reconsider the IPC – Court is shown to have
Bench victim while the evidence relied Section 326 committed an error of
(J. Dalveer accused was a upon by the trial r/w Section law or procedure and
Bhandari, J. Dr. hurdle in letting and High Court. 149, 302, conclusions arrived at by
M.K Sharma) the victim enjoy -The 307 them are perverse.
peaceful consequences of Supreme Court may
possession of the delay of FIR and CrPC – interfere where wrong
property. The reaching out to Section 154, inference of law is made.
accused on the Magistrate in 157, 378, (Para 20-35)
386 - Delay in transmitting the
15.09.1989 was cases.
FIR and its reaching the
assaulted by the
Article 136 Magistrate is not fatal in
accused by
of the Indian all cases – Genesis of the
surrounding him,
Constitution complaint has to be
thus leading to
considered and its
his death. promptness.
(Para 37)
Kuriakose and (Para 1&2) -Scope of right IPC- Section -As the murderous
anr. V. State of In this case the to Private 96 & 97 assault is established by
Kerala accused caused Defence under clear evidences of
[1994 Supp (1) serious knife S.313 of the CrPC- eyewitnesses it will not
SCC 602 injuries on vital CrPC. Section 313 be necessary to
parts of two investigate the motive
Corum- 2 judge unarmed people behind such commission
bench which resulted in of offence.
(J. K. their (Para 11)
Jayachandra instantaneous - No plea for right to
Reddy, J. G.N death and this private defence taken
Ray) event was under s. 313 CrPC. High
witnessed clearly Court held that No
by eyewitnesses. mischief was committed
The fight was on by either of the deceased
the contribution and there was no
for the enclosure occasion to inflict knife
on St. Sebastian injuries on vital parts for
Day. an alleged interference
with a right of pathway. It
was held that nature of
such injuries negatives
any just plea for right to
self defence. Convicted
under section 302 IPC.
Supreme Court upheld
the order and dismissed
the appeal
(Para 9 and 11)
Majju & Anr v. (Para 3) The -Issue of conflict IPC- S.302, - The scope of evidence
Sate Of Madhya accused and son of of medical 148, 323, appreciation. The court
Pradesh of. The deceased opinion between 341 r/w 149 held there were medical
(2001) 9 SCC 449 got into a fight. first examination certificates of the
It was sorted out report and Evidence witnessed examined
Corum- 2 but when he appreciation of Act- S.45 which proved their
Judge bench deceased was evidence. presence at place of
(J. Umesh C. going to the occurrence. Therefore,
Banerjee, J. temple with his the evidence of witness
K.G brother carrying was not infirmity. (Para 5)
Balakrishnan) a gun, the - The conflict of medical
accused snatched opinion with the first
the gun and hit examination giving
the deceased detailed information
with sticks about the wounds being
deep while the
causing his death
postmortem report
after taking him
stated wounds in
to the hospital.
haphazard manner. The
court considered first
report. (Para 6)
- Final contention was
that the occurrence was a
free fight between two
groups and should be
charged under S.326 of
IPC. However, the court
held that the evidence
was strong and
consistent, and the acts
were described in the
first information report as
well. Therefore, the
appellants were held
guilty under S.302. (Para
7)
State of (Para 1 to 3) -Relevance and IEA- S.27, - Scope of child witness
Maharashtra A minor girl was reliability of a S.118 where it is not necessary
Versus Bharat raped and child witness that child witness is not
Fakira Dhiwar murdered by under S.27 of the IPC- S.376, always to be liable to be
[(2002) 1 SCC inflicting head Indian Evidence S.302, S. rejected. Where trial
622] injury. The Act. 363, S.201 court finds testimony of
accused - Consideration child witness to be
Corum- 2 respondent was of death reliable and such witness
Judge Bench arrested . A sentence in the stood the test of
(J. K.T grinding stone, ‘rarest of the searching cross-
Thomas, J. which had rare’ cases examination and even
S.N Variava) bloodstains on it, otherwise his evidence
was recovered at was supported by a
the instance of number of other
the respondent circumstances.
(Para 19 and 20)
from the field .
- Trial court imposed
death sentence on the
but the high court
acquitted him because of
the case of ‘rarest of the
rare’ case and hence he
was given life
imprisonment.
(Para 23)
Surender Singh (Para 3) -Scope of Article Article 136, - It established
Versus State of The complainant 136 of Constitution concurrent findings of the
Haryana and victim were Constitution of of India fact and the guidelines
[(2006) 9 SCC confronted by a India for IPC, 1860: S. cannot be reopened until
247] group of three concurrent 392, 394, circumstances 4-points
boys, the accused finding of facts 397 given in the judgment
Corum- 2 Judge in front of the and Interference (Para 4)
Bench Oriental Bank of of Supreme - Every discrepancy
(J. H.K Sema, J. Commerce Court in the cannot be treated as fatal
Dr. AR. which leads to an same. to the prosecution case.
Lakshmanan) altercation. -Consideration Discrepancy which does
They were armed of not after the prosecution
with pistol and inconsistencies case materially, does not
knife and they which are fatal create infirmity.
tried to snatch a to the (Para 6)
bag of cash from prosecution.
the victim and on
trying to avoid it,
the victim was
severely hurt and
hit by the knife.
Darbara Singh v. (Para 2) -Principles of IPC – Prejudice caused to a
State of Punjab Feud between defecting charge Section 34, person by omission of
(2012) 10 SCC the alleged which vitiate the 109, 302 r/w framing of charges has to
476 accused and the trial. s.34 be proved by the person
victim over sale - Consideration alleging such prejudice.
Corum- 2 of country liquor of medical Indian Need for accused to show
Judge Bench on credit. Hit by evidence vis-à- Evidence Act prejudice cause by error
(J. Dr. B.S both the vis oral evidence – Section 45, in charge and failure of
Chauhan, J. appellants or -Relevance of 59, 155, 114 justice o assigned
F.M Ibrahim accused on head Motive in thereby. (Para 20 and 21)
Kalifulla) and chest by holding a person CrPC – - Inconsistency
Kirpan leading to guilty for crime. Section 211, between the opinion of
instant death. 215, 217, doctor as to how injuries
222, may have been caused.
464/465 Unless oral evidence
available is totally
irreconcilable with
medical evidence, oral
evidence would have
primacy. (Para 10 to 14)
-Relevancy of Motive.
Great importance in case
involving circumstantial
evidence. However when
direct evidence is
available motive loses its
significance
(Para 15 to 17)
