Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 and s. 307 – Prosecution case was that victim went to sleep in chaubara of the house which was not having any shutter, whereas PW-5 (first informant) along with the other family members slept in a room on the ground floor – PW-5 heard a knock on the door in which she was sleeping – She opened door and she saw the accused appellant standing there armed with a knife – Appellant inflicted an injury with the weapon on the abdomen of PW-5 – Another assailant who was accompanying appellant caught hold of her arm – On raising alarm, both assailants ran away – Then, PW-5 went upstairs and found her husband-victim severly injured – Victim died on the way to hospital – Trial Court framed charges against the appellant – Another accused KS was also summoned to face trial – The Trial Court acquitted KS, however, the appellant was convicted u/ss. 302 and 307 IPC – High Court dismissed the appeal against the conviction – Correctness:
Held: The motive for the incident, as projected in the evidence of PW-5, was accused bearing jealousy on account of flourishing business of victim-deceased – Other than this bald averment, there is no corroborative material to lend credence to this theory – If the prosecution case is to be accepted, the moment victimdeceased had been belabourned, the purpose of the accused was served and then there was no reason why accused would expose himself to the other family members – Furthermore, as per the prosecution case, two accused were involved in the incident – And when they have gone down to eliminate the other family members, there was no reason for the person accompanying the accused-appellant to be unarmed – This creates a doubt on the truthfulness of the prosecution story – Also, PW-5 had alleged that the investigation being conducted was partisan and tained, pursuant to that she had filed petitions (including to chief minister and the High Court) – However, in her cross-examination she virtually resiled from the averments made therein – Neither in the FIR nor in the application (Exhibit-DA) signed by the first informantPW-5 and addressed to the Chief Minister, the name of the second accused KS is mentioned as one of the assailants – Both accused persons are relatives of deceased and PW-5 – In that event, if the first informant had identified the offenders at the time of the incident, there was no reason as to why she would leave out the name of KS while giving the statement to the police officer, who recorded FIR (Exhibit PG/2) – This creates a doubt on credibility of PW-5 – Further, a serious doubt is created on the credibility of the deposition made by the first informant-PW-5, that she and her husband were being taken to two hospitals – This completely destroys her credibility as there cannot be two views on the aspect that if a case of homicidal death is reported at a Government hospital the doctors would immediately inform the police and there is no chance that the dead body would be allowed to be carried away by the family members – Further, many contradictions have been elicited in the cross examination of PW-6-son of deceased with reference to his previous versions, as recorded by different investigating officers – Both the witnesses PW-5 and PW-6 are wholly unreliable – That apart, two investigating officers who conducted thorough investigation and found the entire case set up by the first informant-PW-5 to be false – Consequently, the appellant deserves to be acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt – Therefore, the judgment of the trial Court and the High Court are set aside. [Paras 16, 18, 21, 25, 27, 28, 32]
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.