Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, M.M. Sundresh, JJ.
Virendra – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 466 of 2018
Decided On : 11-07-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Murder – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – From evidence produced by prosecution, presence of appellant in place of occurrence is highly improbable – Evidence of Star prosecution witness cannot be relied upon as against other prosecution witnesses themselves which stood uncontroverted – Recovery having not been proved in manner known to law, coupled with inadequate evidence on record to implicate appellant – Prosecution has failed in its attempt to prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellant has committed offence – Conviction rendered by Trial Court as confirmed by High Court, stands set aside and appellant set at liberty. (Paras 6 and 10)
Facts of the case:
Accused were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and the provisions of the Arms Act and tried accordingly. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses as against 8 by the defence. The trial court rendered a conviction against the appellant and the co-accused Suresh. The co-accused did not challenge the conviction and served out his sentence. The appeal filed by the appellant was also rejected by the High Court. Assailing said conviction sentencing the appellant for life the present appeal by special leave is filed.
Findings of Court:
Reliance was made on the recovery from the appellant. The fact remains that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that only one shot was fired which could be seen even from the evidence of PW15. While assessing the evidence produced by the defence, courts discarded them without appreciating the fact that it has to be seen only on the degree of probability.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M. M. SUNDRESH, J.
1. Life imprisonment rendered by the Court of Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Chhattarpur, Madhya Pradesh with the imprimatur of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh is assailed before us.
FACTS THROUGH THE PROSECUTION EYES
2. On 27.04.2001, the deceased Main Babu was allegedly shot dead and killed by three accused namely, Baijnath, Virendra and Suresh over a long pending property dispute, despite verdicts in their favour. Baijnath, who was the father of the other two accused, died during the trial. For the occurrence that happened at 07:30 a.m., the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by PW14, the father of the deceased at 08:30 a.m. PW16, the Investigating Officer, arrested the accused on the next day followed by recoveries of firearms from Virendra (appellant herein) and Suresh and thereafter completed the investigation.
3. The accused were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the provisions of the Arms Act and tried accordingly. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses as against 8 by the defence. The trial court rendered a conviction against the appellant and the co-accused Suresh. The co-accused did not challenge the conviction and served out his sentence. The appeal filed by the appellant was also rejected by the High Court. Assailing the said conviction sentencing the appellant for life the present appeal by special leave is filed.
WITNESSES
4. We shall consider the necessary witnesses alone while testing the conviction rendered:-
(i) PW1: He is an eyewitness who heard the gunshot. He saw the deceased lying near the gate. There was nobody else present. Thereafter, he went to inform one Raju and found that the body of the deceased was not available. PW3 was sitting in his tea stall at the time of occurrence. He stayed near the corpse for about 10 to 15 minutes. After the occurrence, numerous other people also came to witness the deceased. He specifically states that PW15 came much later.
The evidence of PW1 actually supports the case of the defence. Unfortunately, this witness has not been treated as hostile.
(ii) PW 3 : He is another witness who heard the gunshot. He saw the deceased lying at the spot. He identified the accused in the court and thereafter deposed that they were not present at the scene of occurrence, as the accused was shot by some other one. He heard the gunshot being fired once by the said person who was actually carrying the weapon while running. In his cross-examination he speaks of one Sushil, DW2 having tea from his shop. The evidence of PW3 synchronizes with PW1, being the tea stall owner, having heard the gunshot. He asked DW2 to inform the family members of the deceased. Thereafter, PW15 came to the place of occurrence and made the enquiry as to whether he witnessed the actual occurrence to which he replied in the negative.
Unfortunately, even the evidence adduced by PW3 despite being destructive to the prosecution version has not been impeached either by seeking to declare him as hostile or by way of re-examination and thus allowed to stand as in the case of PW1.
(iii) PW7: He is the doctor who examined the deceased and conducted the postmortem. Though he deposed that the deceased died of the external injuries caused, it is his evidence that both the major injuries, namely injury nos. 1 and 3 having the same size with similarity qua the nature, it is possible that they are from the same firearm and therefore, could have been caused by a single shot.
(iv) PW10: This witness is the wife of the deceased, who at the time of deposing, was living with her brother-in-law, namely the brother of the deceased. She had not spoken about the presence of PW15 and resiled from the prosecution version. As wisdom dawned, she was treated as hostile at the request of the prosecution.
(v) PW13:He is the brother of the deceased. He not only deposed that he came to the place of occurrence on being informed but also saw a girl bleeding along with the dec
Evidence of Star prosecution witness cannot be relied upon as against other prosecution witnesses themselves which stood uncontroverted.
Mere failure of the prosecution in producing reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory relating to the weapon of offence and the blood-stained earth and clothes would not derogate from the veracit....
The prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on uncorroborated witness testimony, especially from related parties, is insufficient for conviction.
In a case of circumstantial evidence, the absence of motive is not always fatal to the prosecution case.
Conviction under IPC Section 302 and Arms Act Section 25 upheld due to credible direct witness testimony and supporting evidence, despite challenges to forensic integrity.
Point of law : It is well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony
The need for reliable witness testimonies and corroborating evidence, especially in the absence of independent witnesses, to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; significant inconsistencies and investigative lapses led to reasonable doubt in the evidence presented.
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
