SUBHASH KRISHNAN v. STATE OF GOA
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 120B, 302, 342, 362, 364, 504
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 161, 313
Judgment
witness could not be produced. The High Court also A noted that the trial Court, therefore, had no option than to ignore his evidence. The High Court then rightly pointed out that the whole purpose of the complaint was to ignite the investigation, that PW-35, the investigating officer after receipt of the complaint Exhibit 96 set the law B in motion, sent the record of the complaint to the Magistrate apart from the commencement of the investigation based on the telephonic message regarding the ongoing assault without reference to either the victim or the accused involved in the assault. This Court fully c agrees with the approach of the trial Court as confirmed by the High Court in proceeding with the case of the prosecution, ignoring the evidence of PW-2 while at the same time the factum of the nature of offence alleged in the complaint Exhibit -96 as proceeded with by the 0 prosecution deserved to be considered in accordance with law. [Para 11] [294-D-H]
1.2. Apart from PW-2 who was the author of the complaint and also eye witness, there were nine other witnesses in the case who fully supported the case of the E prosecution. Taking the totality of the above facts, it will be futile on the part of the appellant to contend that PW- 2 did not offer himself for cross examination and, therefore, the whole genesis of the case should be thrown out of board. In the said background, the F submission about the non-reference of the name of the appellant in Exhibit 96 pales into insignificance especially, when the complicity of the appellant in the commission of the crime was otherwise fully established by the prosecution. Therefore, the claim that the case of G the appellant should be equated to that of A-5 and A-6 does not merit any consideration. [Para 12] [295-A-B-D- F]
1.3. Inasmuch as any crime alleged is against the society, it is the bounden duty of the Court to find out the H 278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 10 S.C.R. A truthfulness or otherwise of the prosecution case allegedly based on initial information received and the steps taken in furtherance of its investigation for acceptance or otherwise of such information in order to determine the further course of action to be taken to B unearth the details of the crime, the persons involved in the crime and ultimately ensure that the guilty are brought to book. When the case of the prosecution is brought to Court by placing all the materials, it is for the Court to examine the action taken by the investigating machinery c in the anvil of the law in force and on being satisfied with the correctness of the procedure followed can proceed to find the proof of guilt and pass its judgment. In other words, the Courts should examine and find out whether the story of the prosecution as projected before the Court trying the offence merits acceptance. [Para 13) [296-A-E] 0
1.4. The procedure followed by PW-35 in having commenced the investigation based on Exhibit 96 along with site inspection, the prior information received by him through phone about the alleged occurrence and every E further steps taken by him in having recorded the statements of the other eye witnesses, the initiation taken by him for apprehending the vehicle in which the accused alleged to have travelled, recovery of weapons from the vehicle, arrest of the accused including the appellant, the F recovery of the dead body at the instance of A-1, the step taken for getting the dead body examined through PW- 9, the ascertainment of the injuries sustained by the accused themselves, gathering of the FSL reports on the materials seized from the accused as well as the G deceased, considered in a sequence, disclose that the case of the prosecution as projected based on Exhibit 96 even in the absence of the cross examination of PW-2 in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case was perfectly in order and there is no good ground to reject H the case of the prosecution. [Para 16] [297-F-H; 298-A-B] SUBHASH KRISHNAN v. STATE OF GOA 279 Satish Narayan Sawant v. State of Goa 2009 (17) SCC A
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.