NDLI: Fainul Khan Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Conviction under ss.302/149 and ss.323/149 and s.147 IPC defective charge
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860: ss.302/149 and ss.323/149 and s.147 – Conviction under – Plea of appellant that charge was framed under ss.302/149 and ss.323/149 against six persons but charge under s.147 was against four persons only and therefore was defective without aid of s.141 and s.146 – Held: Originally there were six accused – Two of them have since been deceased – Appellants were well aware that six of them were charged together for a common assault under ss.302/149 and 323/149 because of their sharing a common object – Appellants were also aware that two of the accused were carrying a deadly weapon, spears, and which were used for assault – Therefore, omission by the court in framing charge under s.147 alone against four persons only was a mere inadvertent omission – Moreover, objection about a defective charge, without any evidence of the prejudice caused, was raised for the first time in the instant appeal and for that reason also did not merit consideration. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.313 – Plea of appellant that they were seriously prejudiced in their defence because proper opportunity to defend was denied under s.313 as the incriminating questions put to them were extremely casual and perfunctory – Held: s.313 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 – But equally there cannot be a generalised presumption of prejudice to an accused merely by reason of any omission or inadequate questions put to him – Ultimately it will be a question to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case including the nature of other evidence available, the kind of questions put to an accused, considered with anything further that the accused may state in his defence – In the facts of the instant case, considering the nature of ocular evidence available of the injured witnesses P.Ws. 7 and 8 who were also cross-examined by the appellants, no prejudice was 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 was caused to them – Appellants did not offer any explanation or desire to lead evidence except for stating that they were falsely implicated. Criminal Law: Absence of injury report of injured eye witnesses – Effect on prosecution case – Prosecution case was that P.W. 8 and deceased were going together when they were surrounded and assaulted by the accused persons – There was no lacunae in the evidence or cross-examination 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 – 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 also stated to have been recorded at the hospital – The fact that there was no injury report, 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 officer-incharge of the police station where the deceased and injured were taken, 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 the charge sheet was submitted by him – There was no material in his cross-examination to discredit his statements – Investigation, defect in. Penal Code, 1860: ss.302/149 and ss.323/149 – Conviction under – 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-S – 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-F – In the fracas the fact that the assault by appellant-M landed on the thigh of the witness was not of much relevance – Likewise, P.W. 8 was assaulted by appellant-S on the face and head – The fact that the co-accused may have assaulted on the head again cannot be considered very relevant to eschew the absence of common object – No reason to interfere with the order of conviction.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 1127
Petitioner	Fainul Khan
Respondent	State Of Jharkhand And Another
SCR	[2019] 13 S.C.R. 924
Judgement Date	2019-10-04
Case Number	937

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Fainul Khan Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another

Please Log-in to view this content

Chand Khan & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Manjit Singh Vs. The State of Punjab

Surendra Pal & Ors. Vs. State of U.p. & Anr.

Imrat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Saddik @ Lalo Gulam Hussein Shaikh & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat

Jodhan Vs. State of M.p.

Shahid Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan

Anand Mohan Vs. State of Bihar

Vahitha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Fainul Khan Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another

Fainul Khan Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Chand Khan & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Manjit Singh Vs. The State of Punjab

Surendra Pal & Ors. Vs. State of U.p. & Anr.

Imrat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Saddik @ Lalo Gulam Hussein Shaikh & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat

Jodhan Vs. State of M.p.

Shahid Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan

Anand Mohan Vs. State of Bihar

Vahitha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Fainul Khan Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another