1. Conviction and sentencing under Section 302 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code for murder and unlawful assembly. (Para 1 , 2 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 558
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
SHIO SHANKAR DUBEY & ORS. – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR – RESPONDENT(S)
Criminal Appeal No. 1617 of 2014
Decided On : 09-05-2019
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
Witnesses related to deceased are not necessarily interested witnesses.
Impression of the person preparing inquest report cannot outweigh evidence of eyewitnesses.
Witnesses related to deceased are not necessarily interested witnesses.
Impression of the person preparing inquest report cannot outweigh evidence of eyewitnesses.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Criminal trial - Witnesses related to deceased are not necessarily interested witnesses - More so when it is consistent and not shaken in cross examination. (Para 10, 12)
(1996) 1 SCC 614; (2007) 14 SCC 150 - Relied upon
(b) Criminal trial - PW11 and PW 13 categorically proving presence of Ram Pravesh Dubey at the scene of occurrence - Merely because PW5 not mentioning his name while naming four other persons, cannot lead to inference that Ram Pravesh Dubey was not involved in the incident. (Para 13)
(c) Criminal trial - Inquest report and post mortem report - Inquest report mentioning injury by fire arm - Post mortem report not mentioning any bullet injury - Impression of bullet injury recorded in the inquest report held, only opinion of person preparing inquest report - No bullet found in post mortem report - Impression of the person preparing inquest report cannot outweigh evidence of eyewitnesses PW11 and PW13. (Para 14, 17)
(d) Criminal trial - Motive - PW 11 stating that deceased and appellant were having animosity over election rivalry - Sequence of events showing PW11 had no opportunity to implicate anybody. (Para 18, 20)
Facts of the case:
The trial court convicted all the three appellants : appellant No.1 – Shio Shankar Dubey, accused No.3, was convicted for the offence under Sections 302/149/148 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant No.2 – Ram Pravesh Dubey, accused No.4, was convicted for the offence under Sections 302/149/147 I.P.C. The third appellant, i.e., Jamadar Dusadh, accused No.1 was convicted under Sections 302/147 and 379 I.P.C.
The High Court has dismissed the criminal appeals filed by the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in conviction.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Akhilesh Kr. Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Devashish Bharuka, AOR
For the Appellants : Mr. Akhilesh Kr. Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Devashish Bharuka, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Reliability of related witnesses — contradiction between inquest and post-mortem reports — omission of an accused by one witness — lack of motive. (Para 7 )
3. Related witnesses are natural witnesses — visual opinions in inquest reports do not override medical evidence — prompt FIR recording reduces likelihood of false implication. (Para 10 , 13 , 17 , 20 )
4. Close relatives are natural witnesses whose testimony is reliable unless a direct interest in false conviction due to animus is proven. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
5. Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences upheld. (Para 21 )
6. Whether a close relative of the deceased is automatically considered an interested witness whose testimony should be discarded?
No. A close relative is a natural witness. The term interested implies a direct interest in convicting the accused due to animus or oblique motives. If the evidence is intrinsically reliable and trustworthy, conviction can be based on such testimony. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
7. Does a discrepancy between a visual observation in an inquest report and a post-mortem report necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case?
No. An inquest report often contains the visual opinion of the officer. If the post-mortem report explains the injuries, such as blunt force causing a skull fracture, the visual impression of a bullet injury does not belie the prosecution's case. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
8. Does the failure of one eyewitness to name a specific accused among others seen fleeing the spot prove that accused's non-involvement?
No. The failure of one witness to name an accused is not conclusive if other eyewitnesses have categorically proved the presence and participation of that accused in the occurrence. (Para 13 )
9. What is the legal significance of the prompt recording of a fardbeyan and FIR at the place of occurrence?
Prompt recording of the fardbeyan and FIR, especially within a very short time after the incident, indicates that there was no opportunity for the informant to falsely implicate innocent persons. (Para 20 )
Prior History : From the High Court Of Judicature at Patna in CRLA 410 of 1990 dated 16-07-2013 [2013 0 Supreme(Pat) 748]
JUDGMENT
Ashok Bhushan, J.
This appeal has been filed by the three appellants challenging the judgment of High Court of Patna dated 16.07.2013, by which Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 410 of 1990 filed by them questioning their conviction and sentence under Section 302 and some other sections of I.P.C. has been dismissed.
2. The prosecution case is that on 16.05.1980, one Raj Ballam Rai, informant alongwith his brother Raj Keshwar Singh came to Sasaram Court. After finishing his work in court informant proceeded with his brother to his residence near Dharamshala. Raj Keshwar Singh was on rickshaw and the informant was on the bicycle. Raj Keshwar Singh was armed with a double barell gun. The further case is that at about 9:00 am when they reached 50 to 60 yards east of Kargahar More, the informant saw that Doodnath Dusadh, Jamadar Dusadh and Ram Nandan Dusadh stopped the rickshaw. They were armed with Lohbanda. Shio Shankar Dubey was armed with Rifle and his brother Ram Pravesh Dubey was armed with lathi and they were also alongwith them. They pulled down Raj Keshwar Singh from rickshaw and started assaulting with Lohbanda. The Mukhiya that is Shio Shankar Dubey asked them to kill in a hurry. The informant fled away. Shio Shankar Dubey opened fire but none received any injury. The accused persons thereafter fled away towards south.
3. At 9:30 am, the police official namely, S.N. Singh of Sasaram Police Station arrived at the place of occurrence to whom Raj Ballam Rai gave a fardbeyan. On the basis of fardbeyan given at the place of occurrence by informant, First Information Report was registered against 05 accused.
4. The prosecution, to prove its case, produced 15 witnesses. PW11, informant, fully supported the prosecution case. PW13, Ragho Ram Singh, who was also an eyewitness, supported the prosecution case. PW5 was another eyewitness, who saw 04 of the accused running away from the spot. Formal witnesses were also produced by the prosecution. On the spot seizure was also made by one Siddhanath Singh, Inspector of Police, which seizure also contained copy of four applications, which were typed at District Court, Sasaram and were being carried by the deceased alongwith him in a diary, which applications were marked as Ext.3/2 to 3/5.
5. Inquest Report was also prepared on the spot. Body was sent for post mortem. Post mortem report was prepared as Ext.4. One defence witness, DW1, Dasrath Ram was also produced, who brought the register of the employees for the period 1961 to 1963 containing the signatures of deceased Raj Keshwar Singh.
6. The trial court vide its judgment and order dated 14.09.1990 convicted 04 accused, (one of the accused namely, Doodnath Dusadh having died during the pendency of trial. The appellant No.1 – Shio Shankar Dubey, accused No.3, was convicted for the offence under Sections 302/149/148 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant No.2 – Ram Pravesh Dubey, accused No.4, was convicted for the offence under Sections 302/149/147 I.P.C. The third appellant, i.e., Jamadar Dusadh, accused No.1 was convicted under Sections 302/147 and 379 I.P.C. Four accused, who were convicted filed criminal appeal in the High court, which has been dismissed. One Ramnandan Dusadh also having died during pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the three surviving accused are in the appeal before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal submits that PW11 – informant being brother of the appellant and PW13 being husband of the niece of the deceased were all close relatives and interested witnesses, the Courts below committed an error in relying on the testimony of interested witnesses. There being no independent witnesses corroborating the charge against the appellants the appellants ought not to have been convicted and sentenced. It is further submitted that PW5, who claime
