Penal Code, 1860 – ss.294(b), 341, 506(ii) and 302 – Prosecution case that the informant’s son was caught by the two accused persons when he was trying to escape their attack, the appellant hacked the knife forcibly on the left side of his neck – The informant’s son was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead – Hence, the FIR by PW-1 – The trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and proceeded to convict and sentence the accused persons – The High Court acquitted the two other accused persons, however, appellant was acquitted u/s.506(ii) IPC and his conviction u/ss.294(b), 341, and 302 IPC was sustained – Correctness:
Held: While disbelieving the testimony of PW-1 qua accused Nos. 2 and 3, the High Court has taken note of the fact that the incident occurred 300 metres away from the Church and that could not have enabled PW-1 to have actually witnessed the overt act that is attributed to accused Nos.2 and 3 – However, the appellant herein involved in the same overt act has been convicted on the basis of the same testimony of PW-1 – In the instant case, PW-1 is the father of the deceased and is an interested witness – No doubt that merely because a witness is an interested witness, it cannot be a ground to discard the testimony of such a witness – However, the testimony of such a witness has to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection – When the High Court comes to a conclusion that it is difficult to believe that PW-1 could have witnessed the incident in the manner narrated by him and granted benefit of doubt to accused Nos.2 and 3, the conviction of accused No.1 on the basis of the evidence of the very same witness only on the basis of conjectures and surmises, is not permissible – As far as seizure of knife is concerned, the testimony of PW-18 would show that the recovery was made from an open place accessible to one and all – In the considered opinion of this Court, only on the basis of the circumstance of such a recovery, the conviction could not have been based – Therefore, the appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him and is directed to be released forthwith. [Paras 12, 13, 14, 15, 17(iii)]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. 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.