FAINUL KHAN vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   CRIMINAL APPEAL   NO(s). 937 OF 2011

VERSUS

WITH   CRIMINAL APPEAL   NO(s). 938 OF 2011

VERSUS

  CRIMINAL APPEAL   NO(s). 939 OF 2011

VERSUS

JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J. The   appellants   are   aggrieved   by   their   conviction   under Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date: 2019.10.04 12:18:40 IST Reason: Section   302/149   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code   (IPC)   sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for life, along with conviction 1 under   Sections   323/149   and   147   IPC,   sentencing   them   to varied terms of imprisonment under the same. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 01.11.1983 at about 06.30 PM.   The accused were variously armed with spears and lathis.   P.W. 7 and 8 are stated to be injured eye witnesses.  P.W 6 also claimed to be an eye witness.  The police report was lodged by P.W. 8 at the hospital. 3. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Sidharth Luthra making the lead   arguments   on   behalf   of   the   appellants   submitted   that charge was framed under Sections 302/149 and 323/149 IPC against six persons. But the charge framed under Section 147 was defective being against four persons only and without the aid of Sections 141 and 146.   It was next submitted that the appellants   have   been   seriously   prejudiced   in   their   defence because   proper   opportunity   to   defend   was   denied   under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (Cr.P.C.) as the incriminating questions put to them were extremely casual and perfunctory in barely two pages. All relevant questions with regard   to   the   accusations   were   not   put   to   the   appellants, 2 denying   them   the   opportunity   to   present   their   defence.   It cannot be considered as a mere irregularity, to hold that no prejudice has been caused to the appellants. Emphasising the inconsistency in the prosecution evidence it was submitted that P.W. 7 claims lathi injury on his thigh and leg, but P.Ws. 6 and 8 are silent on the role of appellant Fainul Khan, and appellant Mir Shaukat is stated to have assaulted on the thigh of P.Ws. 6 and 7 when according to the F.I.R. he hit on the head of P.W. 8. Reliance in support of the submissions was placed on  Masalti vs. State of U.P. , AIR 1965 SC 202,  Ranvir Yadav vs. State of Bihar , (2009) 6 SCC 595 and  Samsul Haque vs. State of

4. It was next submitted that P.W. 6 was not an eye witness to the assault. He had arrived upon hearing the commotion after the appellants had left and the deceased was lying on the ground.  P.W. 6 also does also refer to the presence of P.W. 7 at the place of occurrence.   5. The   evidence   of   P.Ws.   6   and   8   was   sought   to   be discredited on account of their being related to the deceased. The claim of P.Ws. 7 and 8 to be injured eye witnesses was also 3 challenged in absence of any injury report with regard to them. False implication of the appellants could not be ruled out in view   of   previous   enmity   having   been   admitted   by   the prosecution witnesses. P.W. 8 deposed that the deceased was assaulted on his head from behind and fell on his face, but no facial injury has been found on the deceased.     6.   The deceased was assaulted with a spear by accused Siddiq and Zabbar. The allegations of assault by the appellants on the deceased with a lathi are omnibus, since only one bruise has been found on the upper arm. There existed no common object because in that event nothing prevented the appellants from individual assaults each on a sensitive part of the body of the   deceased,   such   as   the   head.   Alternatively,   the   three appellants at best may be liable for a lesser offence relying on Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh vs. Valerabhai Deganbhai Vagh , (2017) 3 SCC 261.     and Ors. 7. Learned counsel for the State submitted that there was no lacunae in the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.   In   any   event   the   appellants   have   not   been   able   to demonstrate any prejudice. Moreover this objection cannot be 4 raised at the present belated stage when it had not been raised at any earlier stage.  Reliance was placed on  Shobhit Chamar , (1998) 3 SCC 455 and   vs. State of Bihar Fahim Khan vs. State of Bihar , (2011) 13 SCC 142. 8. The absence of any injury report with regard to P.Ws. 7 and 8 may at best be a case of defective investigation. It cannot discredit them as injured eye witnesses in view of the nature of their oral evidence and that of P.W. 11, the officer­in­charge of the Kisko police station where the deceased and the injured were taken for treatment. There are concurrent findings with regard   to   the   presence   of   the   appellants.   There   is   ample evidence of the appellants sharing a common object with the co­accused.  9.  We   have   considered   the   submissions   on   behalf   of   the parties as also perused the materials on record. Originally there were six accused. Two of them have since been deceased and the fate of one is not known. Section 464, Cr.P.C provides as follows:­  “464. Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error, in charge.­­(1) No finding, sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall 5 be invalid merely on the ground that no charge was   framed   or   on   the   ground   of   any   error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure   of   justice   has   in   fact   been   occasioned thereby.                            xxx" The appellants were well aware that six of them were charged together for a common assault under Sections 302/149 and 323/149   because   of   their   sharing   a   common   object.   The appellants   were   also   aware   that   two   of   the   accused   were carrying a deadly weapon, spears, and which were used for assault.   We are therefore of the considered opinion that no prejudice has been caused to the appellants and the omission by the court in framing charge under Section 147 alone against four   persons   only   was   a   mere   inadvertent   omission.     The presence   of   one   bruise   injury   on   the   deceased   is   also   not considered relevant in the facts of the case. The objection about a   defective   charge,   without   any   evidence   of   the   prejudice caused, has been raised for the first time in the present appeal and for that reason also merits no consideration.            10. P.W. 8 and the deceased were going together when they were surrounded and assaulted by the accused persons. We do 6 not find any lacunae in the evidence or cross­examination of the witness to doubt his presence and the injuries suffered by him in the same occurrence.  P.W. 7, a resident of the locality and an independent witness also suffered injuries during the same occurrence. However, we are not satisfied that P.W. 6 is an eye witness. The witness was at home and reached the place of occurrence after hearing the commotion by which time the deceased was lying on the ground. P.W.7 deposed that P.W.6 reached after him.   P.W. 7 deposed of assault by appellant Sainul   upon   P.W.   8   with   lathi   and   also   upon   the   witness himself by appellants Fainul and Mir Shaukat causing injuries on his head and right hand.   Appellant Mir Shaukat is also stated to have assaulted the witness on his thigh with lathi. P.W.8   deposed   that   the   accused   surrounded   him   and   the deceased.     Appellant   Sainul   assaulted   the   deceased   on   the head.  The witness was assaulted on his face, head and hand with the lathi. Both the witnesses deposed that they were then taken   to   the   hospital   along   with   the   deceased   where   their injuries   were   examined.     P.W.   8   during   the   course   of   his deposition also showed the scars caused to him by his injuries, noticed by the trial judge.  The statement of the two witnesses 7 is also stated to have been recorded at the hospital.  The fact that there is no injury report, in our opinion, can at best be classified as a defective investigation but cannot raise doubts about the  credibility  of their  being  injured  witnesses in  the same occurrence. The fact that P.W.8 may be related to the deceased or previous enmity existed, are irrelevant in the facts of the case.  P.W. 11, the officer­in­charge of the Kisko police station   where   the   deceased   and   injured   were   taken,   has specifically deposed that he submitted a request for the injury report   of   the   witnesses   and   pursuant   to   which   their   injury reports were made available to him.   Only thereafter was the charge   sheet   was   submitted   by   him.   We   do   not   find   any material in his cross­examination to discredit his statements.  11. Section   313,   Cr.P.C.   incorporates   the   principle   of   audi alteram partem.   It provides an opportunity to the accused for his   defence   by   making   him   aware   fully   of   the   prosecution allegations against him and to answer the same in support of his innocence. The importance of the provision for a fair trial brooks no debate.  “ 313.   Power to examine the accused .—(1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling 8 the   accused   personally   to   explain   any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court— ( a ) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused, put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary; ( ) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution b have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case: Provided   that   in   a   summons­case,   where   the Court   has   dispensed   with   the   personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause ( b ). (2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub­section (1). (3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment   by   refusing   to   answer   such questions, or by giving false answers to them. (4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed. (5) The court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused and the Court may   permit   filing   of   written   statement   by   the accused as sufficient compliance of this section.” 12.   But equally there cannot be a generalised presumption of prejudice to an accused merely by reason of any omission or inadequate questions put to an accused thereunder. Ultimately it   will   be   a   question   to   be   considered   in   the   facts   and circumstances   of   each   case   including   the   nature   of   other 9 evidence available, the kind of questions put to an accused, considered with anything further that the accused may state in his defence. In other words, there will have to be a cumulative balancing of several factors. While the rights of an accused to a fair trial are undoubtedly important, the rights of the victim and  the   society   at   large   for   correction   of   deviant   behaviour cannot be made subservient to the rights of an accused by placing the latter at a pedestal higher than necessary for a fair trial.  13. In the facts of the present case, considering the nature of ocular evidence available of the injured witnesses P.Ws. 7 and 8 who have also been cross­examined by the appellants, and the evidence of P.W. 11, we are of the considered opinion that no prejudice   has   been   caused   to   the   appellants.     A   specific question was put to the appellants that they participated in an unlawful assembly with the common object of murdering the deceased.   Further,   it   was   also   put   to   them   that   they   had caused injuries to P.W. 7 and 8.  Merely because no questions were put to the appellants with regard to the individual assault made by each of them, it cannot be said in the facts of the case that any prejudice has been caused to them.  The questions 10 asked being similar we consider it proper to extract it with regard to one of the appellants. The appellants did not offer any explanation or desire to lead evidence except for stating that they had been falsely implicated.  Questions asked to Fainul Khan are extracted hereunder: “Question: As has been stated by the prosecution witnesses, on 1st November, 1983 you along with other   accused   participated   in   an   unlawful assembly and took part in fighting. It that true? Answer: No. It is wrong. Question:   It   has   also   been   said   that   you participated   in   the   common   object   of   the unlawful assembly of murdering Rabbani Khan. Is that true? Answer: It is wrong. Question: It has also been said the during the said incident, you had also caused injuries upon Nabiul hasan Khan, Eshanul Khan, Mir Tarabul and Mir Sanif. Is this true? Answer: No. It is wrong. Question: Do you want to say anything in your defence? Answer: We have been falsely implicated.” 14.   In   Suresh   Chandra   Bahri   vs.   State   of   Bihar ,   1995 Suppl (1) SCC 80, it was observed as follows : “26…..It is no doubt true that the underlying object behind Section 313 CrPC is to enable the accused to explain any circumstance appearing against him in the evidence and this object is based on the maxim audi alteram partem  which is one of the principles of natural justice. It has always been regarded unfair to 11 rely   upon   any   incriminating   circumstance   without affording the accused an opportunity of explaining the said incriminating circumstance. The provisions in Section 313, therefore, make it obligatory on the court to question the accused on the evidence and circumstance appearing against him so as to apprise him the exact case which he is required to meet. But it would not be enough for the accused to show that he   has   not   been   questioned   or   examined   on   a particular circumstance but he must also show that such   non­examination   has   actually   and   materially prejudiced him and has resulted in failure of justice. In   other   words   in   the   event   of   any   inadvertent omission on the part of the court to question the accused   on   any   incriminating   circumstance appearing against him the same cannot ipso facto vitiate   the   trial   unless   it   is   shown   that   some prejudice was caused to him. In  Bejoy Chand Patra  v.  AIR 1952 SC 105, State of W.B. ,  this Court took the view that it is not sufficient for the accused merely to show that he has not been fully examined as required by Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code (now Section 313 in the new Code) but he must also show that   such   examination   has   materially   prejudiced him.   The   same   view   was   again   reiterated   by   this 1962 Court in  Rama Shankar   Singh  v.  State of W.B. , Suppl(1)SCR 49…..”  15.    In   , considering the nature of Shobhit Chamar (supra)   ocular evidence notwithstanding the infirmities at the stage of Section 313, Cr.P.C., it was observed as follows: “18. ….In the case before us, the prosecution case mainly   rested   upon   the   ocular   evidence   of eyewitnesses.   On   conclusion   of   the   prosecution evidence,   the   trial   court   did   put   the   necessary questions relating to the evidence of eyewitnesses to 12 both   the   appellants   and   thereafter   recorded   the answers given by them.  xxxx 24. We have perused all these reported decisions relied upon by the learned advocates for the parties and   we   see   no   hesitation   in   concluding   that   the challenge   to   the   conviction   based   on   non­ compliance of Section 313 CrPC first time in this appeal cannot be entertained unless the appellants demonstrate that the prejudice has been caused to them. In the present case as indicated earlier, the prosecution strongly relied upon the ocular evidence of   the   eyewitnesses   and   relevant   questions   with reference   to   this   evidence   were   put   to   the appellants.   If   the   evidence   of   these   witnesses   is found acceptable, the conviction can be sustained unless it is shown by the appellants that a prejudice has been caused to them. No such prejudice was demonstrated   before   us   and,   therefore,   we   are unable to accept the contention raised on behalf of the appellants.” 16.  Notwithstanding our conclusions as aforesaid that there has in fact been no irregularity in procedure under Section 313 Cr.P.C. much less any prejudice caused to the appellants we shall now deal with the issue whether the appellants could at this stage raise objections with regard to the same.  In  Sukha vs.  State of  Rajasthan, 1956  SCR   288, it  was   observed  as follows :­ “35. …..We have recently decided that we will be slow to entertain question of prejudice when details are not furnished; also the fact that the objection is not   taken   at   an   early   stage   will   be   taken   into 13 account.   There   is   not   a   hint   of   prejudice   in   the petition   filed   by   the   appellants   here   in   the   High Court for leave to appeal to this Court; nor was this considered   a   ground   for   complaint   in   the   very lengthy and argumentative petition for special leave filed   in   this   Court.   The   only   complaint   about prejudice was on the score that there was no proper examination   under   Section   342   of   the   Criminal Procedure Code. We decline to allow this matter to be raised.” 17.  Masalti  (supra) concerned a case of death sentence and it does not appear that attention was invited to     (supra). Sukha In   view   of   the   above   discussion   we   regret   our   inability   to consider   the   alternative   submission   of   Shri   Luthra.   The appellants   were   undoubtedly   the   members   of   an   unlawful assembly   some   of   whom   were   also   armed   with   spears   and assaulted   the   deceased.   All   the   accused   surrounded   the deceased obviously to prevent his escape. The initial assault was   made   on   the   head   of   the   deceased   with   the   lathi   by appellant Sainul.   The deceased fell down and when he was trying   to   stand   up,   he   was   assaulted   by   two   persons   with spears.  P.W. 7 was assaulted on the head by appellant Fainul. In the fracas the fact that the assault by appellant Mir Shaukat landed on the thigh of the witness is not of much relevance. 14 Likewise, P.W. 8 was assaulted by appellant Sainul on the face and head.  The fact that the co­accused may have assaulted on the head again cannot be considered very relevant to eschew the absence of common object.   18. We,   therefore,   find   no   reason   to   interfere   with   the conviction of the appellants.   The appeals are dismissed. The appellants   are   stated   to   be   on   bail.     Their   bail   bonds   are cancelled and they are directed to surrender forthwith to serve out remaining period of sentence.   …………...................J. [NAVIN SINHA] …………...................J. [B.R. GAVAI] NEW DELHI OCTOBER 04, 2019. 15