Penal Code 1860: s. 302 – Murder – Accused persons armed with weapons killed the victim – Informant fled from the scene of incident and recorded FIR – Conviction of appellant no. 1 to 3 for the offence u/ss. 302/149/148, u/ss. 302/149/147 and u/s. 302/147 and 379 respectively – Upheld by the High Court – On appeal held: Courts below justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants – Prosecution case fully proved against them – Prosecution witness, who accompanied the deceased-victim gave the eyewitness account of the entire incident – Mere fact that witness was related does not lead to inference that such witness was an interested witness – Names of all the five accused and role attributed to them promptly recorded by the police officials – Non-mentioning of the name of one of the accused by the prosecution witness cannot lead to the inference that he was not involved in the incident – Ocular evidence corroborated the medical evidence – Motive for the occurrence was proved – Witness – Interested witness.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 PW11, brother of the deceased, fully corroborated the prosecution case in his evidence. In spite of thorough cross-examination, the witnesses could not be shaken. The submission of the appellant that witnesses PW11 and PW13 being related to the deceased are interested witnesses and should not be relied, cannot be accepted. The mere fact that deceased was brother of the informant and PW13 is the husband of the niece of the deceased, does not impeach their evidence in any manner. The mere fact that witness is related does not lead to inference that such witness is an interested witness. Thus, it cannot be said that PW11 and PW13 being related to deceased, their evidence cannot be relied. [Para 10, 12] [612-C-D; 614-E] Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 614 : [1995] 5 Suppl. SCR 239 ; Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 14 SCC 150:[2007] 3 SCR 939 – referred to.
1.2 PW5 in his statement stated that at 9 O’clock in the morning, he had gone to place S. where he saw the accused persons namely RND, DD, JD and SD fleeing on the road. It is true that in his statement, he mentioned names of only four persons, who were seen fleeing on the road. The mere fact that he did not mention name of RPD cannot lead to the inference that RPD was not involved in the incident. There may be several reasons due to which, he could not see RPD. When PW11 and PW13, whose evidence has been relied by the trial court as well as High Court, have categorically proved the presence of RPD and his participation in the occurrence. [Para 13] [614-F-H; 615-A]
1.3 The nature of injuries especially injury in the back of head led the officers recording the inquest report to believe that bullet entered from back of the head and came out of the mouth. The above impression recorded in the inquest report was only opinion of person preparing inquest report and due to the above impression recorded in the inquest report and no bullet having been found in the post mortem report, it cannot be concluded that incident did not happen in a manner as claimed by the prosecution. The mention of bullet injury was only an opinion of the officer writing the inquest report and in no manner belies the prosecution case as proved by eyewitnesses PW11 and PW13. [Para 17] [616-D-G]
1.4 PW11 in his statement clearly mentioned that as his nephew had contested election against the accused SSD for the post of Mukhiya, due to which SSD was angry with his deceased brother. The trial court held that motive for the occurrence has been proved from the oral evidence of PW11 and the exhibits. [Para 18 and 19] [616-H; 617-A, D]
1.5 Within half an hour of the occurrence, police officials from Police Station ‘S’ arrived on the spot, a fardbeyan of the informant, PW11 was recorded on the spot itself by the police officials. At 9.30 AM, the fardbeyan has been proved. The inquest report and the seizure report were provided at 10.00 AM and
10.15 AM respectively on the spot. FIR was sent to the court the next day. Trial court noticed the entire sequence of the events and rightly came to the conclusion that there was no opportunity for the informant to implicate other leaving the real culprits. [Para 20] [617-D-F]
1.6 The prosecution case being fully proved against the accused, the eyewitness account of PW11, who was accompanying the deceased has given the eyewitness account of the entire incident. The names of all the five accused and role attributed to them have been promptly recorded by the police officials within half an hour of the incident on the spot. The medical evidence corroborates the ocular evidence. Both the courts below have not committed any error in convicting the appellants and sentencing them. [Para 21] [618-B-D]
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.