Penal Code, 1860 – Murder and destruction of evidence – Prosecution alleged that accused no.1 committed murder and accused no.2-respondent destroyed the evidence by cutting the corpse of the deceased into pieces and disposing them –Trial Court convicted accused no.1 u/s. 302 and s. 201 r/w. s.34 and accused no.2-respondent u/s. 201 r/w. s.34 – High Court acquitted both the accused persons – On appeal, held: State failed to furnish correct address of the accused no.1 for effecting service in the criminal appeals – Consequently, criminal appeals against accused no.1 dismissed for non-prosecution – Insofar as accused no.2-respondent is concerned, on perusal of the evidence on the record, out of 23 prosecution witnesses, the evidence of PW-7 was crucial as she was presented as the sole eye-witness who had seen the accused no.2respondent along with accused no.1, cutting the corpse of the deceased into pieces – When the entire case hinges on the evidence of a sole witness, a paramount duty is cast on the Court to carefully scrutinize such evidence and find out whether such evidence is worth credence or not – According to PW-7, her husband also witnessed the crime, but they could not identify whether the accused were cutting into pieces the body of a dead person or an alive person – Even after watching the brutal crime, neither PW-7 nor her husband had raised hue and cry in the vicinity which was stated to be thickly populated, but they went to sleep peacefully – Unnatural manner in which PW-7 kept quiet for one and half month after witnessing such a brutal crime – Further, husband of PW-7 was neither examined by the police at the time of investigation nor was examined before the Court and no satisfactory explanation for his non-examination was found from the records – Apart from that, neither test identification parade was conducted nor any steps were taken to prove the blood group of the deceased with the blood stains found on the alleged weapon used in the crime – Not safe to convict an accused solely relying on evidence of PW-7 – Therefore, judgment of the High Court affirmed.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The appellant-State of Maharashtra has not complied with the directions of Judge-in-Chamber i.e. to furnish the latest and correct address of the unserved common sole respondent-accused No.1 in Criminal Appeal Nos.1872 & 1873 of 2013. Consequently, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1872 and 1873 of 2013 stood dismissed for non prosecution. [Para 5] [519-A-B]
2.1 In the remaining case, namely, Criminal Appeal No. 1871 of 2013 against respondent herein i.e. accused No. 2, out of
23 prosecution witnesses, the evidence of PW7 is crucial as she was presented as the sole eye-witness who had seen the accused No. 2 along with accused No. 1, cutting the corpse of the deceased into pieces. Apparently, there was no other witness who had last seen the accused in the company of deceased prior to the place and time of occurrence. When the entire case hinges on the evidence of a sole witness, a paramount duty is cast on the Court to carefully scrutinize such evidence and find out whether such evidence is worth credence or not. [Para 7] [519-C-D]
2.2 The evidence of PW7 in the present case needs a careful consideration. Admittedly, PW7 had witnessed the crime being committed by the accused at about 10.30 p.m. in the night and there was no electricity at the alleged scene of offence. According to PW7, her husband also witnessed the crime, but they could not identify whether the accused were cutting into pieces the body of a dead person or an alive person. Even after watching the brutal crime, neither PW7 nor her husband had raised hue and cry in the vicinity which was stated to be thickly populated, but they went to sleep peacefully and thereafter led normal life. There is also no dispute that PW7 did not identify the respondent herein-accused No. 2 and her statement was recorded after a gap of one and half month from the date of incident. [Para 9] [520B-C]
2.3 After considering the evidence of PW7, the circumstances of the entire case and also the evidences of other prosecution witnesses, it is found that husband of P.W.7, who was also stated to be an eyewitness to the incident, was neither examined by police at the time of investigation, nor even before the Court and no satisfactory explanation for his non-examination is found on record. Apart from this, even, test identification parade was not conducted and no steps were taken to prove the blood group of the deceased with the blood stains found on the alleged weapon used in the crime. [Para 10] [520-D-E]
2.4 Thus, in the foregoing circumstances, especially taking note of the unnatural manner in which PW7 kept quiet till one and half month after the incident, that too in the midst of thickly populated vicinity, it is not safe to convict an accused solely relying on her evidence. The High Court has rightly classified and considered the evidences of prosecution witnesses and after properly analyzing the facts and circumstances rendered a reasoned judgment, disbelieving the prosecution story. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court affirmed. [Para 11] [520-F-G] Joseph v. State of Kerala (2003) 1 SCC 465 : [2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 439; State of Haryana v. Inder Singh (2002) 9 SCC 537; Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 4 SCC 257: [2012] 3 SCR 630; Seeman @
Veeranam v. State, by Inspector of Police (2005) 11 SCC
142 – relied on.
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.