Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 – Murder – Prosecution case that respondent committed murder of brother and sister – Complaint by the mother – Conviction and sentence of the respondent u/s. 302 for committing the murder of the brother and sister by the trial court – However, the High Court set aside the order – On appeal, held: Prosecution witness had seen the accused alongwith the deceased going to their house – Though he turned hostile but his evidence can be considered to that extent – Prosecution established and proved the motive as regards the accused – Recovery of the knife in three pieces, having blood stains recovered from the place of occurrence, was used for commission of the offence, and establishes the guilt of the accused – Also proved that it was accused who purchased the said knife – Recovery of Loi having blood stains of the deceased as well as of the accused, was on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the accused himself – Further the accused failed to explain the injury on him – Thus, High Court erred in holding that the prosecution failed to prove the link evidence, which could establish and bring home the guilt of the accused – Findings of the High Court perverse – High Court did not properly appreciate the entire evidence on record – Thus, the order passed by the High Court acquitting the accused not sustainable, and is quashed and set aside.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Though, PW-8 initially made a statement before the Police that he had seen the accused alongwith the deceased going to their house, but before the court, he turned hostile. However, during the course of cross-examination, he stated that K-deceased, a few days before the incident had disclosed to him that accused R had made some obscene gestures at her. As per the settled position of law, even the evidence of a hostile witness can be considered to the extent, it supports the case of the prosecution. Therefore, prosecution has established and proved the motive as regards the accused. [Para 7][448-E-G]
1.2 Another link in the evidence, which establishes and brings home the guilt of the accused person is the recovery of the knife in three pieces, having blood stains recovered from the place of occurrence, which was used for commission of the offence. The prosecution was successful in establishing and proving that it was the accused, who purchased the said knife from PW-9 who not only identified the knife purchased by the accused, but also clearly stated that the knife, found in three pieces is the same, which was purchased by the accused. He has also identified the accused. As per the medical report and the post-mortem report, the cause of death was a result of hemorrhage and shock consequent upon slitting of the throat. Thirteen ante mortem injuries were found on the person of G and eight injuries on the body of K. It was opined that the same could have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon. PW-3, doctor who conducted the postmortem stated in her evidence that the injuries could be possible with the weapon examined when taken as a whole-single weapon. She stated that even the throat injury was possible with three pieces and it was possible that the weapon might have broken during the process. It has been established and proved that during the use of weapon-knife, in commission of the offence, the same might have been broken. [Para 7.1][448-H; 449-A-E]
1.3 The next link in the chain of evidence is the recovery of Loi having blood stains of the deceased K as well as of the accused, which Loi was recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the accused himself. Though, Panchas to the recovery panchnama/disclosure panchnama had turned hostile, still the prosecution has proved the same through the I.O. However, unfortunately, the High Court has doubted the DNA/CFSL report on grounds, which are not germane, namely, the human hair in the hands of K was not examined; blood stains were not properly presented. However, the High Court has not gone in the detailed discussion of the CFSL Report on record. Having gone through the CFSL Report as well as the depositions of the witnesses from the CFSL, the blood on the Loi was found to be matching with that of K and the accused. [Para 7.2][449-EH]
1.4 One another circumstance, which will go against the accused would be that an injury on the ring finger of the left hand of the accused was found, which was treated by PW-20, doctor who stated that on seeing the injury, he found it could be due to a sharp-edged weapon. The accused has failed to explain the injury on him. On the contrary, he came out with a false case that the injury was caused by some iron bar, which has not been established and proved. [Para 7.3][450-A-C]
1.5 Considering the said facts of the case and evidence on record, the High Court committed a grave/serious error in observing that the prosecution has failed to prove the link evidence, which could establish and bring home the guilt of the accused. The findings recorded by the High Court are perverse. The High Court has not properly appreciated the entire evidence on record, more particularly, the findings recorded by the trial court, which as such were on appreciation of the entire evidence on record. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court reversing the conviction and consequently acquitting the accused is unsustainable and the same is quashed and set aside. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court on the accused for the offence u/s. 302 IPC is restored. [Para 8, 8.1, 9][450-C-F]
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.