Back
A.P.SEN, BAHARUL ISLAM, O.CHHINNAPPA REDDY
State Of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Kalki – Respondent
What is the distinction between a "related" witness and an "interested" witness? (!) What constitutes "material discrepancies" in witness testimony? [1000191480005] When may the Supreme Court interfere with High Court findings of fact under Article 136? [1000191480006]
Key Points: - State of Rajasthan appealed against Rajasthan High Court's acquittal of respondents Kalki and Amara in a murder case involving land dispute (!) [1000191480003]. - Deceased Poona was killed with an axe blow to the neck by Kalki after Amara called him out and knocked him down; eyewitness PW1 (wife) and PW2 (mother) supported prosecution [1000191480001] (!) . - Sessions Judge convicted respondents under Sections 302, 148, 149, 147/302 IPC; High Court acquitted citing PW1 as "interested" witness and material discrepancies (!) [1000191480004]. - Supreme Court held PW1 is a natural witness, not "interested," as relation ≠ interest unless deriving litigation benefit (!) . - Discrepancies in PW1's evidence (e.g., body positions, blow details) deemed minor, normal due to shock, memory lapse, not material [1000191480005]. - Medical evidence (5" x 2" x 4" neck wound) corroborated PW1's account of axe blow by Kalki (!) . - Supreme Court found guilt of Kalki (u/s 302) and Amara (u/s 302/34) proved beyond doubt; High Court acquittal caused miscarriage of justice (!) [1000191480007]. - Under Art. 136, Court interferes with perverse fact findings resulting in miscarriage of justice [1000191480006]. - Appeal allowed; respondents convicted to life imprisonment and directed to surrender (!) (!) .
Judgment
BAHARUL ISLAM. J.:- This appeal by special leave on behalf of the State of Rajasthan is directed against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court acquitting the two respondents, Shrimati Kalki alias Kali and her husband, Amara (along with four other co-accused). Respondent Kalki was convicted under Section 302 and Section 148 of the Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and for rigorous imprisonment for two years, respectively. The five other accused persons including respondent, Amara, were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 and under S. 147 of the Penal Code, and each of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life and to one and a half years rigorous imprisonment respectively.
2. The material facts of the prosecution case were that there was a land dispute between Nimba (P. W. 6) father of the deceased, Poona on the one hand, and respondent Amara and the members of his family, on the other. On July 17, 1970 at about sunset the accused persons of whom respondent Kalki was armed with an axe and respondent, Amara with a dharia, came to the house of the deceased. At that time the deceased was inside his hut with his wife Mooli (P. W. 1). Amara calle
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
