Penal Code, 1860 – s.307 r/w. s.114 – Arms Act – s.25(1)(B)(a) – Bombay Police Act – s.135(1) – Attempt to murder – Prosecution case that victim, who was going to his laboratory was shot on face in his car from a motorbike driven by the appellant – The first accused was the pillion rider – The bullet was operated and removed – Thereafter, the statement of victim was recorded by the investigating officer – Both appellant and the first accused were arrested – The Trial court convicted the appellant and the first accused of the offence punishable u/s.307 r/w. s.114 IPC and s.25(1)(B)(a) of the Arms Act r/w. s.135(1) of the Bombay Police Act – Both the complainant -driver of victim and the victim had identified the appellant – The Trial court sentenced the appellant and the first accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years – The High Court enhanced the sentence of imprisonment for offence u/s.307 r/w s.114 IPC to seven years instead of six – Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that identity of the appellant was not established – Held: The appellant was identified by both the victim and the complainant apart from pancha witness – Be that as it may, the testimony of an injured victim is sufficient for conviction – The complainant had identified the appellant as the driver of the motor cycle – The Judicial Magistrate had corroborated identification of the appellant by the complainant in the Test Identification Parade – It is also clear that the appellant as well as the dummies were brought before the Judicial Magistrate before the witness arrived – The defence was not able to show any infirmity in the identification parade of the appellant which vitiates the identification – Further, the pancha witness testified to the recovery of the weapon in his presence, at the instance of the appellant and identified appellant in Court – Also, the prosecution had established from the ballistic report and the evidence of FSL experts that the bullet that was extracted from the body of the victim, was fired from the weapon recovered on the confession of the appellant – The Trial court had successfully established the chain of events, linking the crime to inter alia the appellant – Thus, the conviction and enhancement of sentence imposed on appellant by the High Court affirmed.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The Trial Court, in effect, found:
(i) It had been established beyond any iota of doubt that the victim had sustained bullet injuries. It had also been proved that the incident had taken place and in the manner alleged.
(ii) The contention of the defence that the injuries were not so life threatening or grave or serious as to attract Section
307 of the Indian Penal code was not acceptable, considering the testimony of three Medical experts who deposed with regard to the gravity and seriousness of the injury.
(iii) The evidence of the FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) Expert, coupled with Exhibit 92 established that an offence attracting the provisions of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code had taken place.
(iv) The recovery of the weapon in terms of Panchnama (Exhibit 88) was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(v) Minor irregularities on the part of the investigation and, in particular, the casual manner in which the Investigating Officer (PW-14) testified would not vitiate the case of the Prosecution.
(vi) The Appellant as also first accused were duly identified both by the complainant (PW-8) and the victim (PW-12) in course of identification parade held on 1st and 3rd January 2003 and they were also identified in Court. The mere fact that the Identification Parades were held on different dates would not render the identification unreliable.
(vii) Both the eye-witnesses had identified the Appellant and the first accused as being the persons who were on the motorcycle. The motor cycle was driven by the Appellant and the first accused was the pillion rider. Both the eye-witnesses had seen the pillion rider, that is, the first accused handling the weapon. The victim clearly deposed that the first accused had fired at the victim at point blank range. The said witnesses remained unshaken despite extensive cross-examination.
(viii) The concerned Executive Magistrate who conducted the identification parade (PW-11) corroborated the evidence of PW-12 and PW-8 with regard to the identification and he also could not be shaken despite extensive cross-examination.
(ix) The Panchnama being Exhibit-88 relating to recovery of the weapon was duly proved by the oral testimony of Pancha witness (PW-10) who had also identified the Appellant.
(x) The Prosecution had established from the ballistic report being Exhibit-92, and the evidence of FSL experts that the bullet that was extracted from the body of the victim, had been fired from the weapon recovered on the confession of the Appellant. [Para 56][380-F-H; 381-A-H]
2. The sessions Judge, correctly found that notwithstanding minor discrepancies, the Prosecution had successfully established the chain of events, linking the crime to inter alia the Appellant. [Para 57][382-A]
3. In this appeal, this Court is not concerned with the conviction of the first accused. The involvement of the Appellant in the offences alleged has duly been established inter alia by the injury of the victim; extraction of bullet from the body of the victim; linking of the bullet to the weapon recovered on the confession of the Appellant upon Forensic examination; the evidence of two eye-witnesses to the crime, namely the complainant (PW-8) and victim (PW-12); Identification by the complainant and the victim of the Appellant in the Identification Parades as also in Court; Identification by the Pancha witness (PW-10) of the Appellant as the person at whose instance the weapon of offence was recovered. [Para 58][382-B-C]
4. The finding of the Sessions Court that the Prosecution had not been able to establish the involvement of the third accused, or to establish that the Appellant and the first accused were part of a conspiracy, which had targeted prominent leaders of the Hindu community did not warrant interference. The High Court rightly dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.1145 of 2006, and allowed Criminal Appeal No.567 of 2006 filed by the Respondent State, only to the extent of enhancing the sentence of imprisonment inter alia of the Appellant to 7 years under Section 307 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence. [Para 59][382-D-E]
Iqbal and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 623 : [2015] 6 SCR 239; Salim Akhtar @ Mota v. State of U.P (2003) 5 SCC 499 : [2003] 3 SCR 470; Bodhraj @ Bodha and Others v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (2002) 8 SCC 45 : [2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 67 – referred to.
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.