IMPORTANT POINTS
Evidence of wife, husband, son or daughter of deceased against a close relative should be relied upon.
Minor inconsistencies do not affect otherwise credible evidence.
Evidence of a witness cannot be thrown away simply because the witness was minor.
Duty of court is not only to see that no innocent is punished but also to see that no guilty person escapes.
When an accused is convicted u/s 302 IPC with the aid of section 34, there is no reason why his sentence should be different from the others.

JUDGMENT

NAVIN SINHA, J.

The appellant has been convicted by the High Court under Sections 302/307/34, I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment, after reversing her acquittal ordered by the trial court. The appellant has further been denied the benefit of any remission in sentence, till she completes twenty-five years of custody.

2. The Trial Court convicted four of the seven accused and acquitted the appellant and two others. The High Court dismissed the appeals against convictions, declined to interfere with the acquittals, with the exception of the appellant.

3. On 27.03.2006 at night, Pappu and Anisha (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) were shot dead on the first floor of their house. PW-2, Heena suffered multiple injuries on her neck with a razor. The deceased and PW-2 are the brother/mother/sister respectively of PW-1, Ishrat Ali. PW-4, Shabnam is the daughter of the appellant, who married PW-1, against the wishes of the appellant. PW-3, Md. Imran is the brother of PW-1. The parties resided in houses across each other with common topography, divided by a lane 5 to 6 feet wide. PW-1 and PW-4 after their marriage had shifted to a separate residence. PW-3 upon returning home saw the appellant standing outside his house, followed by the other accused coming out of the house with blood stained clothes. The witness entered the house to find the corpses and PW-2 in an injured condition unable to speak, and informed PW-1 and PW-4 who then came to the spot. Earlier, in the evening, PW-2 had noticed the appellant standing on the verandah of her own house looking towards the house of the witness.

PW-4 stepped out on the verandah when the appellant told her that the incident was the consequence of the witness not listening to her, and that she had got the deceased killed and her husband will meet the same fate.

4. The Trial Court convicted four accused under Sections 449/302/307/34 and awarded life imprisonment. The appellant was acquitted on benefit of doubt with regard to her presence, failure to recover her blood stained ‘chunni’ and lack of any evidence with regard to conspiracy.

5. The High Court in appeal against her acquittal, after re-appreciation of evidence ascribed motive to the appellant, being perturbed and strongly opposed to the marriage between PW-4 and PW-1. The evidence of PW-2, the injured witness was considered credible and reliable coupled with the recovery the next day of bloodstained lock and key and the appellant’s ‘chunni’ with blood stains on it pursuant to the disclosure made by the appellant. The appellant was thus convicted in like manner under Sections 302/307/34, I.P.C.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant referring to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses contended that none of them has spoken having seen blood on the clothes of the appellant. There was no material to conclude a common intention on part of the appellant as it had not been conclusively established that she was present during the assault. Considering that the houses were located opposite each other across the lane, the presence of the appellant on her own verandah before and after the occurrence was but natural and cannot lead to any inference of guilt. The appellant could not have been simultaneously present at the place of occurrence and her own house. Merely standing outside the house of the deceased cannot be sufficient to infer common intention. PW-2 is unreliable as her statement was recorded late and she has made many additions and alterations to her original statement including contradictions. If on appreciation of the same evidence the trial court had arrived at a possible view to acquit the appellant, the High Court on a re-appreciation of the same evidence ought not to have convicted the appellant. Reliance was placed on Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415. The test of rarest of rare cases should have been applied and the appellant ought not to have been denied the benefit of remission befo