1. Attempt to commit murder using firearms — Conviction under Section 307/34 IPC, Section 27 Arms Act, and Section 6(1) TADA. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1903
1996(5) Supreme 390
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.K. Mukherjee and S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
Bhagirath & Ors. -Appellants
versus
State of Haryana -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 297 of 1989
Decided on 11-7-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : R.L. Kohli, Sr. Advocate and R.C. Kohli, Advocate.
For the Respondent : D.B. Vohra, K.C. Bajaj, Advocates for Ms. Indu Malhotra, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
When prosecution relies upon the evidence of the eye witnesses to prove the incident, motive assumes a secondary role.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 307/34-Arms Act-Section 27-Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985-Section 6(1)-Conviction for offences under-Appeal against-Injured eye witnesses-Their evidence is trustworthy and reliable-Adequacy of motive not relevant-Witnesses have given necessary details how all three accused stretched their guns and fired at them-FIR lodged at the earliest-Names of all three appellants were mentioned with reference to specific role and place from where they used fire arm-FIR in all material particulars corroborates evidence of PW 5-Conviction legally sustainable. (Paras 7 to 11)
Act Referred
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Unreliability of injured witnesses due to enmity — Impossibility of injuries based on firing angle — Disproportionate sentencing. (Para 6 )
3. Testimony of injured eye-witnesses is trustworthy; motive is secondary to credible eye-witness evidence; medical evidence corroborates firearm injuries. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. When prosecution relies on credible eye-witness testimony, the adequacy of motive becomes secondary and does not affect the credibility of injured witnesses. (Para 7 )
5. Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld. (Para 12 )
6. Does the existence of enmity or motive between the accused and injured witnesses render their testimony unreliable?
No. When the prosecution relies on the evidence of eye-witnesses to prove an incident, motive assumes a secondary role. If the testimony of eye-witnesses is found acceptable, the adequacy of motive is not relevant to their credibility. (Para 7 )
7. How should courts treat the evidence of injured witnesses when enmity is alleged?
The evidence of injured witnesses should be scrutinized very carefully, but the mere existence of prior litigation or enmity is not sufficient ground to disbelieve their testimony if it is otherwise trustworthy. (Para 7 )
8. What factors support the reliability of eye-witness testimony in firearm assault cases?
Reliability is supported by the prompt lodging of the FIR with specific roles assigned, sufficient daylight for identification, and medical evidence corroborating the nature of the injuries. (Para 8 , 9 )
JUDGMENT
S. P. Kurdukar, J.-This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellants (accused) challenging the legality and correctness of the order of conviction and sentence dated 12.4.1989 in Sessions Case No. 77 of 1986 passed by the Designated Court under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 6(1) of the Terrorist and Distruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (for short TADA ).
2. The prosecution case may be briefly summarised as under :-
On 7.7.1986 at about 7.00 a.m., Rajinder (PW 5) and his uncle Kishan Lal (PW 6) were coming out of the house of the latter in order to go to their fields. When they came out of the house, they noticed Jai Kishan (A-2) was armed with a gun and standing by the side of Panchayat Ghar. Rai Singh (A-3) was standing there with a 12 bore pistol. Bhagirath (A-1) was standing behind the bitora with a DBBL gun near the Panchayat Ghar. It is alleged by the prosecution that they gave lalkara to Rajinder (PW 5) and Kishan Lal (PW 6) to stop and they would teach a lesson for filing the criminal appeal against them. Immediately, thereafter all the accused stretched their weapons towards Rajinder (PW 5) and Kishan Lal (PW 6). They raised a shout whereupon Partap came out of his house. At that time, Jai Kishan (A-2) fired from his gun a shot hitting Rajinder (PW 5) on the front side of his right shoulder. Bhagirath (A-1) fired a shot from his gun at Kishan Lal (PW 6) hitting him on his right thigh. Rai Singh (A-3) also fired from his pistol. Due to gun shot injuries, Rajinder (PW 5) and Kishan Lal (PW 6) fell down in front of the door. Partap raised a raula upon which all the three accused fled away to their houses with their weapons. Partap also fired two shots in the air from the gun of Rajinder (PW 5) with a view to save the injured persons from further assault. The injured were then taken to Fatehabad hospital for medical treatment. A ruqqa Ex-PC was sent to the Police Station alongwith copies of M.L.R.s at about 10.00 a.m. Inspector Jai Narain, SHO (PW 8) attached to Fatehabad Police Station reached the hospital and after obtaining the opinion of Dr. R.S. Bishnoi (PW 1) about the condition of the injured persons recorded the statement of Rajinder (Ex.PH). Jai Narain, SHO (PW 8) forwarded the said statement to the Police Station on which formal FIR Ex.PH/1 was recorded in Police Station, Fatehabad. Statement of Kishan Lal (PW 6) was also recorded. Jai Narain, SHO (PW 8) then recorded the statements of various persons and seized the boold stain clothes of the injured. On 10.7.1986, Bhagirath (A-1) was arrested and the licenced DBBL gun (Ex.P5) was recorded from his possession with two live cartridges. His arms licence (Ex.P4) was also recovered. After completing the necessary investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against all the appellants for offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms Act and also under Section 6(1) of TADA. The Designated Court found that a prima facie case was made out against the appellants under Section 307/34 IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act and also under Section 6(1) of TADA.
3. The appellants denied the charge and claimed that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. They further stated that the complainant party bore a grudge and enmity against them and, therefore, they have been falsely implicated in the present crime. They prayed that they be acquitted.
4. The prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of two injured persons, namely, Rajinder (PW 5) and Kishan Lal (PW 6) in addition to the evidence of Dr. R.S. Bishnoi (PW 1) who issued the injury certificates in respect of injuries to these two injured persons.
5. The Trial Court after examining the materials on record and after careful perusal of the evidence of Rajinder (PW 5) and Kishan Lal (PW 6) found the appellants guilty of offences for which they were pu
