Rahul vs State of Haryana

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. Although it is the contention of the appellant that as PW-3 and PW-12 are family members/close relations of the deceased, as such, their testimony is to be discarded, but the same cannot be accepted. Merely because PW-3 and PW-12 are related, by itself is no ground, to reject their testimony. Further, a close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. It is fairly well settled proposition that even the evidence of interested person can also be considered provided such evidence is corroborated by other evidence on record. [Para 17][515-C-E]

2. It is clear from the deposition of PW-5 (doctor) and the post mortem report that, injuries were caused over the body of the deceased with a fire-arm and the bullet was found embedded in the body. It is also clearly stated that death was due to fire-arm injuries and was ante mortem in nature. He has clearly stated that the fired bullet which was marked as Ex.P1 was the same which was taken out from the body of the deceased. [Para 18][516E-F]

3. If the oral evidence on record coupled with the documentary evidence is closely scrutinized, this Court is of the considered view that there is a complete chain of evidence which would lead to irresistible conclusion that the appellant-accused has committed the offence and none else. Even the recoveries are sufficiently proved with the cogent evidence. In the disclosure statement the appellant-accused has stated that he has kept the weapon with his Bua. Though she was examined on behalf of the accused to disprove the recovery, at the same time, she has admitted in the cross-examination that police have visited her place a year and a half earlier to her statement. If this part of evidence is examined, coupled with the other documentary evidence on seizure, there is no reason to disbelieve the recovery of weapon, from the residence of appellant’s Bua. All the recoveries have been proved by examining witnesses for such recoveries. Only in view of the disclosure statement Ex.PX recoveries of pistol .315 bore and cartridges were made from the house of his Bua recovery memo Ex.PY on 24.08.2010. Further, as per the FSL report Ex.PXX, the country made pistol .315 bore used by the accused-appellant for committing the murder of the deceased was found in working order and both the fired cartridges recovered from the spot and fired bullet taken out from the body of the deceased, are found fired from the country made pistol recovered at the instance of appellant-accused. Further, the injuries on the person of deceased have been proved by doctor who was examined as PW-5. The material evidence on record produced by the prosecution has been further corroborated by call details of mobile phones of father-in-law of appellant, brother-in-law of appellant and victim and such call details have been proved by the statement of PW-14. Further, it is also well settled that if other evidence on record clearly establishes that the deceased was murdered by the appellant by using fire-arm, the factum of motive loses its importance, more so, in this case the motive has been established by leading cogent evidence to show that only because the deceased had developed relationship with appellant’s wife, has decided to eliminate the deceased. [Para 19][516-F-H; 517-A-E]

4. From the evidence on record, this Court is of the considered view that prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent evidence. Further, the motive is also proved by the prosecution. [Para 20][517-E-F]

5. In the case of Sanjay Thakran relied on by the the appellant, this Court has held that certain tests are to be fulfilled by the prosecution by leading cogent evidence, when the case rests upon circumstantial evidence. Further, in the case of Wakkar this Court has held that mere recovery itself cannot be the basis for conviction and recovery of incriminating articles and its evidentiary value has to be considered in the light of other relevant circumstances. However, having regard to evidence on record in this case on hand, this Court is clearly of the view that the prosecution has satisfied all the tests mentioned in the case of Sanjay Thakran to bring home the guilt of the accused, by resting upon the circumstantial evidence. If the factum of recoveries is considered along with other evidence in entirety, it gives an irresistible conclusion that the appellant alone has committed offence by using the weapon,which is recovered from the house of DW-1 who is the Bua of the appellant. Further, it is also to be noted that whether the guilt of the accused is proved or not based on the circumstantial evidence, each case has to be judged on the overall assessment of the evidence on record, as such this Court is of the view that the case law which is referred above, relied on by the the appellant, would not render any assistance to accept his plea that the appellant was falsely implicated. [Para 21][517-F-H; 518-A-C]

6. The High Court, in the appeal filed by the appellant herein and his father-in-law, reappreciated the evidence on record and confirmed the conviction and sentence, so far as the appellant is concerned and acquitted the other appellant, i.e.,his father-inlaw. Though it is contended by the appellant, on same set of evidence while acquitting the other accused there is no reason to confirm the conviction and sentence so far as the appellant herein is concerned. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has recorded reasons for acquittal of the other appellant, i.e.,father-in-law of appellant. PW-3, in his deposition has clearly stated that when he along with his mother and deceased, went to Badhra, after some time deceased was separated from them, and came back along with appellant and brother-in-law of appellant (proclaimed offender) in a Maruti car. It is stated by PW-3, at that time deceased stated that he was going to Haridwar and would come back in 3-4 days. Thereafter, victim-deceased went along with appellant and brother-in-law of appellant. To the same effect is the statement of PW-12, mother of the deceased. From the said evidence on record, it stands established that the deceased was last seen in the company of appellant and appellant’s brotherin-law (proclaimed offender) only. There was no mention that father-in-law of the appellant-accused (appellant before the High Court) also accompanied deceased for going to Haridwar. In the absence of any evidence on record to show that deceased was also seen with appellant’s father-in-law lastly by PW-3 and PW12, the High Court has come to the conclusion, that prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt so far as the other appellant-father-in-law is concerned. In view of such reasoning recorded by the High Court and evidence on record there are justifiable reasons for acquitting the other appellant, father-in-law of appellant, while confirming the conviction so far as the appellant herein is concerned. [Para 22][518-C-H]

Kanhaiya Lal & Ors. etc. v. State of Rajasthan (2013)

5 SCC 655 : [2013] 6 SCR 361; Ram Chander & Ors. v. State of Haryana (2017) 2 SCC 321 : [2017] 1 SCR

10 – relied on.

State of Goa etc. v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Etc. (2007)

3 SCC 755 : [2007] 3 SCR 507; Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2014) 4 SCC 715 : [2014] 3 SCR 744; Wakkar & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011) 3 SCC

306 – referred to.