1. Murder of a person via acid attack and stabbing — Conviction under Sections 302 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 806
1997(5) Supreme 508
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.K. Mukherjee and S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
Asha @ Ashanand & Ors. etc. -Appellants
versus
State of Rajasthan -Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 183-85 of 1990
With
Crl. A. 84/91 and Crl. A. No. 462/95
Decided on 8-5-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant in Crl. A. No. 183-85/90 and 462/95 : U.R. Lalit, Sr. Advocate, K.L. Janjani and R.K. Agnihotri, Advocates.
For the Appellant in Crl. A. No. 84/91 : S.K. Sabharwal, Advocate.
For the Respondent : K.S. Bhati, Advocate.
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Affidavits sworn by eye witnesses of an incident wherein they denied any knowledge about the incident shows only an attempt on part of accused win over the witnesses.
Affidavits sworn by eye witnesses of an incident wherein they denied any knowledge about the incident shows only an attempt on part of accused win over the witnesses.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302/34-Three appellants came on motor cycle, threw acid on deceased and assaulted him with knives-Three eye witnesses of occurrence-Except a suggestion that they could not have been present at the time of incident no material brought out during cross-examination-Evidence of these witnesses could not be disbelieved on that ground-Eye witness PW5 knew accused prior to incident and he disclosed their names to PW9 who had lodged FIR-Incident took place during day time-There could not be a question of erroneous identity-FIR was lodged at the earliest opportunity-Minor inter se contradictions in evidence of witnesses were rightly ignored-Affidavits of eye witnesses PW7 and PW9 wherein they denied any knowledge about incident shows an attempt of accused to win over witnesses-Accused A1 and A2 had sustained acid burn injuries-Judgment of conviction suffered no infirmity. (Paras 6 to 12)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to witness credibility based on friendship, lack of T.I. Parade, material contradictions, and validity of affidavits denying knowledge of the incident. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. Eye witness testimony corroborated by medical evidence and physical acid burns on accused; minor contradictions do not invalidate credible testimony. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 )
4. Conviction is sustainable when ocular evidence is corroborated by medical findings and physical evidence, and minor contradictions between witnesses are trivial. (Para 6 , 9 , 11 )
5. Appeals dismissed; conviction and sentences affirmed. (Para 12 , 13 )
6. Does the fact that eye witnesses are close friends of the victim render their testimony unreliable?
No. The court held that evidence of eye witnesses cannot be disbelieved merely because they are close friends or reside in different localities, provided no material contradictions are brought out during cross-examination. (Para 7 )
7. Is a Test Identification (T.I.) Parade mandatory when some witnesses do not personally know the accused?
Not necessarily. If one witness knows the accused and informs others, and the FIR is lodged promptly after the incident, the lack of a T.I. Parade does not necessarily invalidate the identification. (Para 8 )
8. How do minor inter-se contradictions between eye witnesses affect the validity of a conviction?
Minor and trivial contradictions between eye witnesses can be ignored by the court and do not necessarily undermine the overall credibility of the prosecution's case. (Para 9 )
9. Does the execution of affidavits by witnesses denying knowledge of an incident automatically disqualify their testimony in court?
No. Such affidavits may be viewed as attempts by the accused to win over witnesses and do not automatically render the witnesses' court testimony unacceptable. (Para 10 )
JUDGMENT
S.P. Kurdukar, J.-These Criminal Appeals are filed by the appellants/accused challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18.8.1989 passed by the Rajasthan High Court for an offence punishable under Section 302, 302/34 IPC. Since these appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Courts below they are being disposed of by this judgment.
2. The prosecution story as unfolded at the trial is as under :-
Cheturam (since deceased) was a resident of Kota and was running a kerosene shop in a log cabin near the bus stand. On 6.3.1987 while he was sitting in his shop, his three other friends, namely, Suresh Kumar (PW 5), Farid (PW 7) and Ashok Kumar (PW 9) had come to his shop and they were talking with each other. Suddenly Ashanand (A-1), Mohan Singh (A-2) and Cheetar Singh (A-3) came on a motor cycle which was driven by A-1. They stopped the motor cycle near the log cabin of Cheturam. A-1 who had a plastic mug containing acid threw it on Cheturam who sustained burn injuries and fell down. A-2 and A-3 thereafter assaulted Cheturam with the knives. A-1 also assaulted Cheturam with the knife. Because of this murderous assault Cheturam sustained the acid and bleeding injuries and became unconscious. All the three accused then fled away. Farid (PW 7) and Ashok Kumar (PW9) hired an auto-rickshaw and carried Cheturam to M.B.S. Government Hospital, Kota. Medical Officer on duty declared Cheturam dead. Ashok Kumar (PW 9) then proceeded to the police station, Gumanpura and submitted the written report Ex. P-16 at 6.30 p.m. about the incident. The FIR Ex. P-17 came to be registered and the Station House Officer, Samarath Singh (PW11) deputed some constables to the place of incident. He himself reached the place of occurrence at about 8.00 p.m. Since it was dark he did not carry out further investigation during the night. He then went to the hospital and verified about the death of Cheturam. On 7th March, 1987 he proceeded to the place of occurrence and carried out further investigation. During investigation A-1 was arrested on 8.3.1987, whereas A-2 was arrested on 14.3.87 and A-3 came to be arrested on 17.6.87. Dr. Manmohan Singh (PW2) held the autopsy on the dead body and noticed as many as 9 incised and acid burn injuries on the dead body of Cheturam. After completing the investigation all the three accused were put up for trial for the offence of committing murder of Cheturam punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.
3. All the three accused denied the allegations levelled against them and claimed to be tried. According to them Cheturam might have been assaulted by some terrorists but they have been falsely implicated in the present crime. A-1 and A-3 in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had stated that the acid injuries on their persons were caused due to the accidental fall of a battery which they were trying to take out from the jeep bearing Registration No. RJF 3031. All the three accused pleaded that they are innocent and they be acquitted.
4. The prosecution in support of its case examined 11 witnesses of whom Suresh Kumar (PW5), Farid (PW7) and Ashok Kumar (PW9) are the eye witnesses. Dr. Manmohan Sharma (PW2) was examined to prove the injuries caused on the dead body of Cheturam and the cause of his death. It also relied upon the reports Exs. P-29 and P-30 given by the Legal Science Laboratory, Jaipur. In addition to the above evidence the prosecution also produced on record the various panchnamas including seizure panchnamas in respect of incriminating articles recovered at the instance of A-1 and A-2. The accused in support of their defence examined some witnesses.
5. The learned Sessions Judge, Kota on appraisal of oral and documentary evidence on record by his Judgment and order dated 9.2.1989 convicted A-1 under Section 302 IPC and awarded the capital punishment and a fine of Rs. 100/-. A-2 and A-3 came to be convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and each one
