IMPORTANT POINT
Prosecution need not always establish motive for the crime.
Prosecution may not examine won-over witness.

Headnote:(a) Criminal Trial – Interested witness – Evidence cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from a person closely related to the victim – It has to be examined carefully before accepting the same. (Para 8)
       (2010)1 SCC 199; AIR 2010 SC 917 – Relied upon
       (b) Criminal trial – Motive – It is not always necessary for the prosecution to establish a definite motive for the commission of the crime – When positive evidence against the accused is clear in relation to the offence, motive is not of much importance. (Paras 9 and 10)
       (1987) 2 SCC 352; (1995) 3 SCC 228; 2003 (2) RCR (Criminal) 629 – Relied upon
       (c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 311 – Non-examination of witness – Prosecution not examining witness on the ground that he was won over – No infirmity.
       1997 Crl.L.J. 273 – Relied upon
       (d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313 – Statement made by the accused can be used by the Court to the extent that it is in line with the case of the prosecution – The same cannot be the sole basis for convicting an accused. (Para 13)
       AIR1953 SC 468; (1963) 3 SCR 678 – Relied upon
       (e) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 149 – Scope and ambit discussed. (Paras 15 to 18)
       AIR 2000 SC 1436; (1976) 3 SCC 779; (1999) 8 SCC 428; (2007) 3 SCC 120; AIR 2010 SC 566; (2009) 10 SCC 773; (2008) 16 SCC 529; (1964) 8 SCR 133 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       1.The accused Ram Sanehi, Baladin, Ramadin, Shiv Dayal and Dharnidhar were tried, convicted and sentenced for the murder of two persons
       2.High Court declined to interfere.
       Finding of the Court:
       There is no merit in the appeals.
       Result : Appeals dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The prosecution is not required to always establish motive for the crime. Evidence of motive is relevant but not essential for conviction if the evidence of the crime itself is clear and convincing (!) (!) .
Interested witnesses, such as family members of the victim, can be reliable and their testimonies should not be automatically disbelieved solely due to their relationship. Their evidence must be examined carefully, but not disregarded outright (!) (!) (!) .
The non-examination of a witness, even if believed to be won over or intimidated, does not necessarily invalidate the case, especially if other evidence supports the prosecution’s version (!) (!) .
Statements made by the accused under legal provisions can be used by the court to assess the case, but such statements alone cannot form the sole basis for conviction. They are to be considered along with other evidence (!) (!) (!) .
Medical and forensic evidence, including autopsy reports and recovery of weapons with human blood, are crucial and can corroborate eyewitness testimonies regarding the occurrence and nature of injuries (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Variations or minor discrepancies in witnesses’ statements, especially those given after some time, do not necessarily weaken the case if the core facts remain consistent and are supported by medical and forensic evidence (!) (!) .
The presence of accused at the scene, their involvement in the attack, and the recovery of weapons with bloodstains support the prosecution’s case. The evidence indicates their participation in the crimes committed (!) (!) (!) .
Witnesses, even if related to the victims, are credible if their testimony is consistent, supported by other evidence, and their presence at the scene is natural. Their testimonies are to be evaluated on their merits rather than their relationship alone (!) (!) (!) .
The existence of a motive, such as previous enmity or unresolved disputes, can support but is not a prerequisite for conviction if direct and positive evidence of the crime is present (!) (!) .
Evidence of common intention and participation in an unlawful assembly, with shared knowledge and purpose, can establish liability for the crime committed by any member of that assembly. The conduct before, during, and after the incident is relevant to determine this common intent (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The formation of an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit murder, and participation of all involved, justifies convictions under relevant legal provisions for all members based on their shared intent and actions (!) (!) .
The court’s assessment of evidence, including confessions, witness testimonies, forensic reports, and weapon recoveries, supports the conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The possibility of false implication is considered unlikely given the corroborative nature of the evidence (!) (!) .
The legal principles regarding the liability of members of an unlawful assembly and the importance of establishing their shared intent are well recognized. Evidence demonstrating their joint participation and common purpose is sufficient for conviction (!) (!) .
Overall, the judgments of the trial and appellate courts are upheld, and the appeals are dismissed due to the strength and consistency of the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice based on these points.

JUDGMENT

Swatanter Kumar, J. —

The accused Ram Sanehi, Baladin, Ramadin, Shiv Dayal and Dharnidhar were tried for the murder of two persons differently, namely, Bahadur Singh and his father Pyare Lal in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 1989. The ld. Sessions Judge, Jhansi, vide its judgment dated 7th August, 1992 after finding all the accused guilty of different offences, including Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) punished them. The order of punishment reads as under:

“Accused Ram Sanehi, Ramadin, Baladin and Shiv Dayal are hereby sentenced to suffer life imprisonment under section 302/34, I.P.C. for committing murder of Bahadur Singh. They and accused Dharnidhar are also sentenced to life imprisonment under section 302/149, I.P.C. for committing murder of Pyare Lal. Accused Ram Sanehi, Ramadin, Baladin and Shiv Dayal are mentioned to the year’s R.I. u/s 148 I.P.C. and accused Dharnidhar is sentenced to six month’s R.I. u/s 147, I.P.C. All these sentences shall run concurrently.

2.All the accused preferred appeals against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the High Court which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated March 22, 2004, wherein the High Court declined to interfere either with the findings of conviction or order of sentence which consequently stood confirmed. Accused Dharnidhar filed Criminal Appeal No. 239 of 2005 against the judgment of the High Court, accused Ram Sanehi along with other accused filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 429 of 2005 and Shiv Dayal preferred a separate appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 430 of 2005 against the judgment of the High Court. Thus, by this judgment we shall dispose of all the above three appeals as they are directed against the common judgment of the High Court and are based upon common evidence. The challenge to the judgment of the High Court and the Ld. Sessions Judge, inter alia, is primarily on the following grounds:

i) The alleged eye witnesses PW1 and PW3 are family members of the deceased and as such are interested witnesses. The conviction of the appellants is based, primarily, on the statements of these witnesses, which as such, is liable to be set aside.

ii) The prosecution has failed to prove any motive for the alleged commission of the crime. The appellants had no motive to commit the said crime and, therefore, the story put forward by the prosecution stands falsified.

iii) The evidence, including the evidence of Dr. P.N. Dwivedi (PW6) creates serious doubts in the case advanced by the prosecution. Particularly, when the Court had disbelieved Devi Singh, PW2, who is alleged to have been a witness to both the incidents, the Court ought to have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. The conduct and role of the accused as attributed by the prosecution is not only improbable, but is impossible to be believed. It is contended that why would the accused leave the brother of deceased Bahadur Singh, who was standing there at the time of his murder and go all the way to kill his father Pyare Lal. Seeing this, in the light of the documentary and ocular evidence, benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the appellants.

iv) The learned trial Court as well the High Court has fallen in error of law in convicting accused Ram Sanehi, Baladin, Ramadin and Shiv Dayal with the aid of Section 34 and accused Dharnidhar with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC respectively. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the basic ingredients for application of these provisions had not been satisfied by the prosecution. Thus, the conviction is vitiated in law.

3.On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently argued that there was sufficient documentary and expert evidence on record. The version of the eye witnesses cannot be doubted, their presence on the site was natural and they had no reason to falsely implicate all or any of the accused in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 562

IMPORTANT POINTProsecution need not always establish motive for the crime. Prosecution may not examine won-over witness.

Cases Referred (14)

IMPORTANT POINT
Prosecution need not always establish motive for the crime.
Prosecution may not examine won-over witness.