1. Murder — Attack with axe — Dispute over land construction — Conviction under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 1052
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DEEPAK GUPTA, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
Laxminath – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 331 of 2011
Decided On : 05-09-2019
Important Points
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the court may rely on witness statements and medical evidence to establish guilt.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
MURDER - Indian Penal Code - Section 302, Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the evidence presented, including witness statements and medical evidence, to establish the guilt of the accused. The court found that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt based on the testimony of the witnesses and the medical evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for the murder of the deceased, who was killed with an axe. The prosecution's case was based on witness statements and the recovery of the murder weapon.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt based on the testimony of the witnesses and the medical evidence.
Issues: The key issues included the credibility of witness statements, the reliability of the medical evidence, and the sufficiency of the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistency of witness statements, the correlation between the injuries and the witness accounts, and the absence of major contradictions to establish the guilt of the accused.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the accused's conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. D.N. Goburdhan.
For the Respondents: Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Mr. Mahesh Pandey, Ms. Tanuja Manjari Patra, Ms. Shweta Mulchanddani, Ms. Yogita Ahuja, Ms. M.K. Aswathi, Mr. Manoj Selvaraj S.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. D.N. Goburdhan.
For the Respondents: Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Mr. Mahesh Pandey, Ms. Tanuja Manjari Patra, Ms. Shweta Mulchanddani, Ms. Yogita Ahuja, Ms. M.K. Aswathi, Mr. Manoj Selvaraj S.
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to conviction based on contradictions in witness statements and failure to send the weapon of offence for forensic examination. (Para 9 , 10 )
3. Minor contradictions in witness testimony do not discredit evidence when supported by medical findings and recovery of the weapon. (Para 9 , 10 )
4. Testimony of witnesses of facts immediately after the occurrence, supported by medical evidence and weapon recovery, is sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld. (Para 11 )
6. Do minor contradictions in witness statements regarding motive or specific details necessarily discredit the prosecution's case?
No, minor contradictions that do not affect material issues are insufficient to discredit testimony, especially when the core version is supported by other evidence. (Para 9 )
7. Can conviction be based on witnesses who did not see the actual killing but saw the accused leaving the scene with the weapon?
Yes, witnesses who see the accused entering and leaving the room with the weapon immediately before and after the crime can lead to the inevitable conclusion of guilt. (Para 9 )
8. Does the failure to send the weapon of offence for forensic examination automatically entitle the accused to an acquittal?
No, if medical evidence confirms the injury could be caused by such a weapon and the recovery of the weapon is proved, the lack of forensic examination may be a lapse but not fatal to the case. (Para 10 )
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
1. This appeal by the accused is directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 27.03.2008 whereby the High Court while upholding the judgment of the Trial Court convicted the accused for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
2. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court has not discussed the entire evidence in the manner in which the First Appellate Court in a murder case should discuss the same. However, we are of the considered opinion that keeping in view the fact that the occurrence is of 12.12.1997 and 22 years have elapsed, it would not be fair to either side to remand the case only on this count. We, therefore, have, with the assistance of the counsel, gone into the entire relevant evidence in detail. The FIR (Ext.P/5) was lodged at the instance of PW-1, who is the cousin of the accused and father of the deceased. In this FIR it is stated that his brother (Laxminath-Deceased) wanted to construct a house on his land to which his son Kursan (deceased) objecting and, therefore there was altercation between them.
3. At about 8-9 am in the morning accused Laxminath came armed with an axe, entered his house and attacked his son and gave three blows of the axe on the side of the face as a result of which his son died. He further states that his wife and daughter-in-law raised an alarm and shouted that the deceased had been killed by the accused. Therefore, he has lodged the report.
4. On the basis of this report, the investigation was conducted. The case of the prosecution is that a confessional statement was made by the accused and the confession led to the recovery of axe, which was used as the weapon of offence. The prosecution filed chargesheet under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. against the accused. The accused was charged for having committed the murder of Kursan. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After trial he was convicted by the Trial Court and sentenced to life imprisonment. The appeal was dismissed and hence this appeal before us.
5. We have carefully gone through the statements on record. Only five witnesses have been examined. The first is the informant, who in the Court stated that he heard the voice of his wife Kosibai (PW-2) that accused Laxminath has killed Kursan. He ran home and found that Kursan was lying dead with injuries on the side of his head. He was informed by his wife and daughter-in-law Lachchandei (PW-3) that Laxminath had murdered the deceased with an axe. He then went to the Sarpanch of the village to complain and a Panchayat was called but the accused did not attend the Panchayat. PW-1 has been cross-examined with regard to the motive for the crime and he has admitted that the accused had built the house even prior to the date of occurrence, though, according to him, the accused built the house on the land of the complainant. He has not been cross-examined in respect of the allegations that his wife and daughter-in-law told him that the accused had murdered the deceased or that he reached the house on hearing the cries of his wife.
6. Kosibai (PW-2) is the wife of PW-1 and mother of the deceased. She states that she was sweeping the courtyard and at that time Kursan was sleeping inside. Accused Laxminath came there, armed with an axe and killed Kursan by giving blows of the axe on the side of the head. She states that she asked Laxminath not to kill her son but he did not pay heed to her request. She raised an alarm and on hearing her alarm her husband came from the field and found that Kursan was dead. Daughter-in-law had also come there in the meantime. PW-2 had informed her husband about the occurrence and the manner in which Kursan was killed. She has also been confronted with the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein it is not mentioned that she was sweeping the courtyard. She first denied the suggestion that she had witnessed the occurrence but she
