Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302, 307, 328 – Murder – Prosecution case that the accused and co-accused with the object of getting married, hatched a conspiracy and killed the mother and the uncle of co-accused by strangulation – Parties also tried to kill the brother of the co-accused but he survived and became the eye-witness – On investigation recovery of pesticide bottle from the place of occurrence – Co-accused being minor, tried by Juvenile Court – Conviction of accused u/ss. 302, 307 and 328 by the courts below – Justification of – Held: Justified – Though there are some contradictions in the different statements of brother of the coaccused who deposed the name of the accused, however, looking to his tender age and the fact that he suffered injuries on the neck which was proved by the doctor, the benefit of doubt given to him – Furthermore, it was established that the accused had purchased the bottle of the pesticide found from the place of occurrence – Also the accused failed to explain the said incriminating material/circumstances found against him.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the trial court as well as the High Court have committed any error convicting the accused for having killed S and her brother. Thus, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, as affirmed by the High Court is upheld. [Para 7][978-B-C]
1.2 It is true that while convicting the accused, heavy reliance is placed on the deposition of PW66, who is the eye-witness. However, the fact remains that five statements were recorded of PW66 in which for the first time in the statement recorded on 25.03.2009 the name of the accused surfaced. The first statement of the PW66 was recorded before the Executive Magistrate which was treated as a dying declaration in which PW66 stated that there were three unknown persons. The name of the accused was not disclosed. Even in the subsequent statements also the name of the appellant-accused was not disclosed. May be because when the earlier statements were recorded coaccused was present all throughout and even PW66 was attempted to be killed and may have been threatened. Also looking to his tender age and the fact that he suffered injuries on the neck which has been established and proved by the prosecution by examining the doctor, the benefit of doubt can be given to PW66. However, at the same time the accused may not be convicted on the deposition of the sole witness PW66. There must be some further evidence to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. The other circumstances which implicate the accused is recovery of the bottle of pesticide from the place of occurrence which was purchased by the accused prior to the commission of the offence. The same has been established and proved by the prosecution by examining PW58 and PW60. There is no reason to doubt the deposition of PW58 and PW60. They are crossexamined by the accused. However, they have fully supported the case of the prosecution. The accused also failed to explain the said incriminating material/circumstances found against him.[Para 6.1][977-B-H; 978-A]
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.