TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (4) TMI 71
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inal) No. 2160 of 1985 was filed on behalf of accused Hari Singh, Suresh and Vijender. On 23rd September, 1985 this Court granted special leave to appeal to appellant Hari Singh, but dismissed the said Special Leave Petition so far Suresh and Vijender were concerned. Leave was granted to appellants Satbir and Gulbir on a separate Special Leave Petition filed on their behalf. 3. The case of the prosecution is that in the night intervening 6th and 7th October, 1582 Mange Ram (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") and Ram Kishan PW 16, who is the first cousin of the deceased, were returning after witnessing the Ram Leela. At that very time Suresh, Satbir, Vijender, Virinder and Gulbir were also returning after the show. Near the baithak of Jit Ram, the accused persons teased some girls of the village who had also gone to see the Ram Leela. The deceased and PW 16 objected to the behaviour of the accused persons towards the girls of their own village. On this it is said that the accused persons abused them which was followed by exchange of abuses from both the sides. Budhi PW 13 intervened and pacified them. Next day at about 2.30 P.M. the deceased and PW 16 went to their flour ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion case the aforesaid injuries had been caused, were shown to PW 15, the doctor, and he stated as follows: "I have seen the alleged weapon of offence, Pharsa Ex. P. 1 and the ante mortem injuries which are noted on the head cannot be inflicted by this weapon. On the opposite side of Pharsa, there are two projecting devices for holding the Pharsa with Bamboo, having a distance of 15 cm. from each other. Even if Pharsa Ex. P. 1 is used from any of its two sides (Between iron blade and the two iron projections referred above) even then head injuries mentioned above are not likely to cause. At this stage another sealed parcel containing a Pharsa Ex. P. 2 opened at the instance of defence counsel. It was found containing a Pharsa Ex. P. 2. I have seen this Pharsa. also. The distances between two projections holding iron blade with bamboos is about 11.5 cm. and as such the injuries in question could not be caused by this weapon also, either used iron blunt side or iron any of the two sides, as stated by me with reference to Ex. P. 1. It is correct that the injury No. 2 is a operational (Surgical) wound which correspond with internal examination of head and corresponding piece of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the residential unit, tube-well are by the side of the flour mill of the deceased there was no question of the accused persons going to the flour mill of the deceased to assault the deceased and PW 16. The accused persons and the deceased both having their flour mill and residential unit side by side, most probably clashed as a result of a sudden fight in which injuries were caused to the victim as well as to PW 16 on the side of the prosecution and on , Suresh on the accused side. It may be mentioned that in the First Information Report, only the name of Suresh, one of the six accused was mentioned in connection with the previous night's incident saying that he along with four or five boys were coming after seeing the Ram Leela and then they started teasing the girls and thereafter an exchange of abuses took place. In the First Information Report it was also stated by PW 16 that accused Suresh and Satbir gave Pharsa blows on the head of the deceased. In the First Information Report PW 16, the informant, did not state that the injuries on the head of the victim were caused by the back side of the Pharsa. On behalf of the appellants, it was pointed out that this change was intro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... State an objection was taken that in view of the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed on behalf of two accused Suresh and Vijender against whom similar allegations had been made, it is not open to this Court now to entertain any plea on behalf of the three appellants because it will be deemed that while dismissing the Special Leave Petition filed on behalf of Suresh and Vijender this Court has affirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court in respect of manner of occurrence and participation of the accused persons including the three appellants. It was also pointed out that if any of the appellants is acquitted or the convictions and sentences imposed against them are altered in any manner it will lead to inconsistency in the different orders passed by this Court. 10. It is true that the system of the justice which is being administered by the Courts, one of the basic principles which has to be kept in view, is that Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, should have consistent opinions in respect of an identical set of facts or on question of law. If Courts express different opinions on the identical sets of facts or question of law while exercising ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... acquittal or ought to have been convicted for a different offence with a different sentence. The doctrine of precedent is not applicable to an order passed by this Court rejecting a Special Leave Petition. Any such order cannot be held to fee stare decisis s(c) that it is binding on us. 13. If it is held that as the Special Leave Petition filed on behalf of Suresh and Vijender having been rejected, this Court cannot alter the conviction or sentence passed against the three appellants, including the acquittal of any one of them, although the Court is satisfied on the materials on record, then what was the purpose, while rejecting the Special Leave Petition of the co-accused Suresh and Vijender, to grant leave to appeal so far the present three appellants are concerned? At the same time it need not be impressed that rejection of the Special Leave Petition gives a finality to an order of the High Court, inasmuch as the same accused cannot file more than one Special Leave Petition. But in rare and exceptional cases this Court has exercised power under Article 32 of the Constitution so that there should not be this carriage of justice and to avoid a direct conflict and confrontation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led cannot be denied to them merely on the ground that Special Leave Petition in respect of co-accused persons with more or less similar charges, evidence and convictions has already been rejected. 17. On materials on record, the prosecution has not been able to prove and establish that appellants had the common object or shared the common intention to cause the murder of the victim. From the evidence of the prosecution itself it appears that the flour mill of the deceased and the residential unit of the accused persons being adjacent to each other, suddenly a fight took place in which the appellant Satbir gave a blow by the back side (wooden part) of the Pharsa, which caused one of the two injuries on the head of the deceased. It cannot be held that appellant Satbir had an intention to cause the death of the victim. In the circumstances of the case, it can be said that he had only knowledge that such blow may cause an injury resulting in the death of the victim. Accordingly he should have been convicted under Section 304, Part-11, of the Penal Code. 18. So far appellant Gulbir is concerned, according to the prosecution case, he was carrying a stick and he is alleged to have ....