Case Name : 1. Banti @ Guddu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2004 SC 261.
Equivalent citation : AIR 2004 SC 261
Case No. : Appeal ( Crl ) 713 of 2003
Date of Judgement : 4-11-2003
Court : Supreme court of India
Petitioner : Banti@ Guddu
Respondent : State of Madhya Pradesh.
Bench : Doraiswamy Raju & Arijit Pasayat
fact of the case : In this case, the appellants, Bantia Guddu and Teekaram, were accused of stabbing and killing Pravin Pathak (the deceased) on September 30, 1991. The incident occurred on the street of Nagar Nigam Dholi Buwa Ka Pul at around 9:15 p.m. Kamal Pathak (PW-1), the complainant, filed a complaint at Janakganj police station at approximately 10:10 p.m. on the same day. According to the prosecution’s version, Kamal Pathak and Laxuman Das (DW-1) were returning from the market when they heard an altercation. They witnessed the accused, Bantia Guddu and Teekaram, assaulting the deceased with knives. The accused intended to kill him and attacked his face, chest, stomach, and thigh, causing him to fall down and become unconscious. After the assault, the accused fled the scene. Kamal Pathak and Laxuman Das took the deceased to the hospital with the help of a police constable they encountered on the way. Unfortunately, the doctor declared Pravin dead upon arrival at the hospital.
The prosecution alleged that the motive for the murder was the accused persons’ previous enmity towards the deceased, as he had beaten them near Madhya College after they had been teasing girls in the area. The police registered a case under Section 302/34 IPC (Indian Penal Code) based on the complaint, conducted an investigation, and filed a charge sheet. The accused pleaded not guilty, claiming innocence and false implication. They argued that Kamal Pathak (PW-1) and Trilokinath (PW-2) had falsely implicated them due to their alleged mala fide intentions. The trial court found the accused guilty and convicted them under Section 302 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Arguments of the Appellants:
The appellants argued that the trial court and the High Court erred in their approach to the case. They claimed that the evidence of DW-1 (Laxuman Das) was not given due consideration, even though it refuted the presence of the prosecution’s alleged eyewitnesses at the time of the occurrence. They also pointed out the delayed examination of witnesses, as most of them were examined on October 2, 1991, despite the incident occurring on September 30, 1991. The appellants contended that the prosecution failed to establish a motive for the murder and that the non-examination of certain witnesses weakened the prosecution’s case.
Response of the State:
The counsel for the state argued that the defense of DW-1 (Laxuman Das) lacked trustworthiness and highlighted reasons why he might have provided false testimony to favor the accused. The prosecution emphasized that DW-1’s evidence largely corroborated the prosecution’s version, except for his departure in claiming that he was not present at the time of lodging the FIR and that he did not identify the assailants. The state also asserted that the non-examination of certain witnesses should not discredit the prosecution’s case, especially when reliable witnesses have already established it.
Judgement of the case : JUDGMENT 2003 Supp(5) SCR 119
Summary: The case involves the murder of Pravin Pathak by the appellants Bantia Guddu and Teekaram. The prosecution’s version states that the accused individuals assaulted the deceased with knives, resulting in his death. The motive for the murder was allegedly the accused persons’ resentment towards the deceased for beating them up earlier due to their harassment of girls in the area.
The defense pleaded Innocence and false implication, claiming that the prosecution witnesses were unreliable and that their presence at the scene of the crime was doubtful. They also questioned the delay in examining the witnesses and the lack of concrete evidence for the alleged motive.
The trial court and the High Court found the accused guilty based on the evidence presented. The defense highlighted the testimony of DW-1, who contradicted the prosecution witnesses’ version of events. However, upon careful scrutiny, the court deemed DW-1’s testimony unreliable and concluded that he was not speaking the truth to favor the accused.
The court dismissed the doubts raised regarding the presence of the prosecution witnesses and the non-examination of certain individuals, stating that the prosecution is not obliged to examine all witnesses and can choose those most supportive of the case. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and the High Court.
In conclusion, the appeals were dismissed, and the convictions of the appellants for the offense punishable under Section 302 of the IPC (Indian Penal Code) were upheld. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
written by Bhupendra Kumar intern under legal vidhiya
