Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302/149, 307 – Arms Act, 1959 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 161, 164 – The case of prosecution was that the accused persons, entered into the house of the PW-1 and her sister and had caused the death of the four of their family members – In the course of committing the offence, the accused persons also inflicted the injuries upon the PW-1 and her sister – Presuming them to be dead, the accused persons left the house – Thereafter, the PW-1 and her sister came out of the house shouting and the villagers and the accused persons reached but since they were frightened of the accused persons, they both deliberately concealed the names of the accused persons and upon being asked by the accused persons that whether they have seen someone, they told them that they haven’t seen anyone – After that the names of the accused persons were disclosed to the investigating officer by PW-1 and thereafter the investigation were carried out and the charge-sheet were filed against the accused persons – The trial court, taking into consideration the evidence adduced convicted the accused persons of the death sentence along with other lesser punishments for other offences – Aggrieved by it, the accused persons approached the High Court – High Court affirmed the sentence imposed by the trial court but commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment – On appeal, held: PW-1 is an injured witness and there is no reason why PW-1 would make false implication and allow the real assailants to go scot-free – Also, a perusal of her testimony shows that she has fully supported the prosecution story as narrated by her in her statement under section 161 CrPC and even during cross-examination nothing was elicited from her which in any way may weaken or demolish her testimony and therefore, she was a fully reliable witness and has stated the things in natural course – Non-disclosure of the name of the accused persons by the PW-1 was a wise step on her part as they were close relatives of her and such non-disclosure was done for protecting her own life.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. PW-1 is an injured witness. Her injuries have not been challenged. There is no reason why PW-1 would make false implication and allow the real assailants to go scot-free. A perusal of her testimony shows that she has fully supported the prosecution story as narrated by her in her statement under section 161 CrPC. Even during cross-examination nothing has been elicited from her which in any way may weaken or demolish her testimony. She was a fully reliable witness and has stated the things in natural course. [Para 18][939-E-F]
2. The two daughters of the deceased ‘V’ having seen the assailants murdering their family members and also causing injury to one of them i.e. PW-1 being close relative rightly and wisely did not speak out anything in their presence and allowed them to remain in dark that she had actually seen them committing the crime. At the first instance, when the Investigating Officer went to the hospital to record her statement, they immediately came out with the true sequence of events as they had happened. [Para 19][939-G-H; 940-A]
3. The pressing of the dog squad into service was also fully justified as till that time when the dog squad was pressed into service in the morning the names of the assailants had not been disclosed. The dog squad had been pressed into service as per the FIR since the names of the assailants were not known. It is the case of the prosecution itself that the time when the FIR was lodged and at the time when PW-1 was admitted to the hospital, the names of the assailants had not been disclosed deliberately and for justifiable reasons. The daughters of the deceased ‘V’ needed to protect their lives otherwise they would also had been done to death. [Para 20][940-B-C]
4. Non-examination of sister of PW-1 and ‘H’, father of ‘V’ also has no material bearing. It is the discretion of the prosecution to lead as much evidence as is necessary for proving the charge. It is not the quantity of the witnesses but the quality of witnesses which matters. PW-1 was the injured witness having received grievous and life-threatening injuries. Non-examination of the statement under section 164 CrPC also has no relevance or bearing to the findings and conclusions arrived at by the courts below. It was for the Investigating Officer to have got the statement under section 164 CrPC recorded. If he did not think it necessary in his wisdom, it cannot have any bearing on the testimony of PW-1 and the other material evidence led during trial. [Para 21, 22][940-D-E]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.