Penal Code, 1860 : ss. 302 and 302/34 – Marriage between M and accused no. 4 – However, strained relations between the couple and their families – After a month, accused no. 4 left her matrimonial home, due to grudge between the other accused persons-brothers of A-4, and M and his sister – Thereafter, accused no. 1, 2 and 3 armed with deadly weapons attacked M – Accused no. 1 instigated accused no. 2 and 3 who inflicted injuries on M resulting in his death – Father and brother of M witnessed the occurrence – On the same day accused no. 3, 2 and 4 attacked the sister of deceased in presence of her ten year old daughter – Conviction of accused no. 1 u/s. 302/34, accused no. 2 and 3 u/s.
302 (two counts) and accused no. 4 u/s. 302 and sentenced accordingly – High Court upheld conviction and sentence of accused no. 2 to 4, however, acquitted accused no. 1 – Interference with – Held: Not called for – View taken by the High Court in convicting the accused whose guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt cannot be faulted – There is no error in appreciation of evidence or any error of law in the judgment passed by the High Court – Motive to commit the crime on the part of the accused is quite clear – Evidence of ocular witness-father and brother of the deceased narrates the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt – Nonexamination of independent witnesses and conviction on the basis of the family members not fatal to the prosecution case – Further, the evidence of ten year old girl has credibility and corroborates with that of medical evidence – Evidence – Witness. Evidence: Related witness – Credibility – Held: Related is not equivalent to ‘interested’ - Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness – Merely because the eye-witnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded – When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established. Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. The view taken by the High Court in convicting the accused whose guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt cannot be faulted. For all the reasons, that there is no error in appreciation of evidence or any error of law in the judgment passed by the High Court. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for interference. [Para 18] [59-F-G]
2.1 The motive to commit the crime on the part of accused is quite clear inasmuch as on the previous day of occurrence also, the parties met at the police station and the accused had a heated discussion with the victims and laid a challenge to finish both M and his sister P. [Para 11] [57-F]
2.2 The evidence of ocular witnesses, PWs 1 and 2, father and brother of the deceased, clearly exhibits the way in which the accused took away the life of deceased M. Their evidence narrates the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and corroborates with that of the medical evidence. It appears that there were two independent witnesses (PWs 5 and 6) projected by the prosecution, but they have turned hostile. In several cases, only the family members are present at the time of incident, then the case of the prosecution will be based only on their evidence. When their evidence is the only evidence available, Courts should be cautious and meticulously evaluate the evidence in the process of trial and it cannot be said that the non-examination of independent witnesses and conviction based on the evidence of family members is fatal to the case of the prosecution. [Para 12] [57-G-H; 58-A-C]
2.3 ‘Related’ is not equivalent to ‘interested’. A witness may be called ‘interested’ only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be ‘interested’. Merely because the eye-witnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. [Para 13, 14] [58-C-F]
State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and Anr. (1981) 2 SCC
752 ; Maranadu and Anr. v. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu (2008) 16 SCC 529 – relied on.
2.4 PWs 1 and 2, though father and brother of the deceased, are natural witnesses and there is no bar in law in examining family members or any other person as witnesses. Their testimonies provided clear picture of the attack carried on by the accused over the deceased. The evidences of PWs 1 & 2 are consistent and inspire confidence in the mind of the Court. The courts below have also properly scrutinized their evidence before taking them into account and there is nothing unusual in believing their testimonies. Apart from that, the prosecution has examined the independent witnesses PWs 5 & 6 who turned hostile. The prosecution has taken all possible steps to bring home the guilt of the accused. Hence, conviction based on evidence of PWs 1 &
2 is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. [Para 15] [58-G-H; 59-A]
2.5 The evidence of PW3 clearly depicted the circumstance and narrated the way in which the deceased P was attacked by the accused explaining the role played by each of the Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Her evidence has the credibility and it clearly corroborated with that of the medical evidence. [Para 16] [59-B]
2.6 The submission that the Courts below erred in disbelieving the evidence of DW-1, cannot be accepted for the reason that it is manifest on record that all the students were marked as present in the attendance register of the school in which PW3 was studying, for a continuous period of seven months and there was not even a single absentee. Thus, it is indicative of the fact that irrespective of the fact whether the students have attended the school or not, attendance was marked to all the students. Neither the evidence of DW1 nor the register will come to the rescue of the accused and on this count, the evidence of PW3 cannot be disbelieved. [Para 17] [59-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.