Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, JJ.
NARENDRASINH KESHUBHAI ZALA - APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT - RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1179 OF 2012
Decided On : 16-03-2023
(A) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Only such evidence is admissible and acceptable as is permissible in accordance with law – In case of a sole eye witness, witness has to be reliable, trustworthy, his testimony worthy of credence and case proven beyond reasonable doubt – Unnatural conduct and unexplained circumstances can be a ground for disbelieving the witness – It is not quantity but quality of witnesses and evidence that can either make or break case of prosecution – It is duty of prosecution to prove that testimonies of witnesses that it seeks to rely upon are of sterling quality – Doubt cannot replace proof – Suspicion, howsoever great it may be, is no substitute of proof in criminal jurisprudence. (Paras 8 and 10)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Arms Act, 1959 – Sections 25 (1) A and 27 (2) – Murder – Common intention – Life sentence – Save and except for confessional statement of accused, prosecution is not able to link weapon with accused – There was no scientific evidence linking it to metal pellets of bullet fired from weapon recovered during investigation – It is duty of prosecution to establish use of weapon discovered in commission of crime – Failure to do so may cause aberration in course of justice – There is no direct or circumstantial evidence, ocular or otherwise, linking accused be it on point of motive or incident – High Court seriously erred in finding accused guilty of having committed offence of murder under Section 302 of IPC – Impugned Judgments set aside and Appellant acquitted. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 18 and 20)
Facts of the case:
Appellant stood convicted for having committed offences under Section 302, Indian Penal Code read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code as also under Section 25 (1) A and Section 27 (2) of the Arms Act. In relation to the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 500 and in default thereof, an additional sentence for one month. The same stands affirmed by High Court vide impugned judgment.
Findings of Court:
None of the courts below have referred to basic principles of criminal jurisprudence. Courts must refrain from committing such grave errors in the future, whereby innocent people are made to suffer incarceration for over a period of nearly two decades, without proper appreciation of evidence.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
1. Vide a judgment dated 19.07.2003 passed by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court at Surendranagar, Gujarat in Sessions Case No. 27 of 2002, the appellant Narendrasinh Keshubha Zala stood convicted for having committed offences under Section 302, Indian Penal Code read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code as also under Section 25 (1) A and Section 27 (2) of the Arms Act. In relation to the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 500 and in default thereof, an additional sentence for one month. The same stands affirmed by the High Court vide impugned judgment.
2. In brief, the case set up by the prosecution reads as follows: on 14.1.2002 at around 2:30 AM police registered an FIR in relation to the murder of a person namely, Ram. The complaint was registered on the asking of Shri Mahipal K. Jadeja (PW-1), father of the deceased in the night intervening 13-14th of January, 2002. The Complaint records the complainant to have stated that at around 11:00PM one person known as Munna Bhai alias Krupal Rajnikant (PW-6) had come on a motorcycle to his residence informing him of his son being critically injured and being taken to MG Hospital in an autorickshaw. The Complainant along with this person reached the hospital where he saw the dead body of his son lying on a stretcher. There was a cut on the left eyebrow and the right side of the neck bleeding profusely. On inquiry he was informed by the doctor that the victim had died as result of a fire shot injury. Significantly, in the complaint recorded the same day at around 02:15 AM he states that, his son had left the house for a walk after having dinner. Further, “… I have no information as to how and who killed my son…” and that “…his son had no animosity prompting anyone to kill…”.
3. With the registration of the FIR, investigation was conducted by I.O. Manbha Bepasaheb Parmar, (PW - 20) which revealed that on 13.1.2002 at around 9:30 PM, while the deceased and Nirav Bipinbhai Patel (PW-3) were sitting on the Nala near the Circuit House, accused Narendra and Shailendra – pillion rider came on a motorcycle and after a brief talk, accused Narendra Zala (Appellant herein) shot dead the deceased with a gun, which was discovered pursuant to his disclosure statement. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the court for trial only against accused Narendra Zala.
4. The Ld. Trial Court convicted the accused on the ground that the incident was witnessed by Nirav Bipinbhai Patel (PW-3), whose testimony, being the sole eye-witness was trustworthy and reliable to the extent that there was motive, being money dispute which the deceased had to return to the Accused. The Police pursuant to Appellants disclosure statement recovered the weapon of crime.
5. The High Court upheld the judgement of the Ld. Trial Court on the ground that the prosecution story was reliable and worthy of credence. Even on the absence of motive being established, i.e. whether or not the deceased owed money to the Appellant, the testimony of the sole eyewitness (PW-3), worthy of credence, fully matched with the case of Murder as set out by the prosecution.
6. We have heard learned counsels for both the parties at length. Certain facts are not in dispute:
(A) The identity of the deceased and the death as result of a gun shot injury;
(B) The Post Mortem conducted by Dr. Ravjibhai Makwana (PW -5) who prepared the Post Mortem Report (Ex. P.36) evidencing the fact that 60 metal pellets were recovered from the muscular tissues of the neck of the deceased;
(C) The cause of death being haemorrhage on account of injury on the right side of the neck pursuant to the use of firearm;
(D) The prosecution case rests on the testimony of material witnesses, i.e. PW-3 sole eyewitness, who was the deceased’s friend and PW-1 who is father of the deceased.
7. In the considered view of this Court this case primarily rests s
Murder – It is duty of prosecution to establish use of weapon discovered in commission of crime – Failure to do so may cause aberration in course of justice.
(1) Murder – Once eyewitnesses do not recognize presence of chance witnesses at the time of occurrence, then their testimonies become unrealistic and concocted.(2) Appreciation of evidence – Quality ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, emphasizing the importance of trustworthy evide....
A single reliable eyewitness testimony can sustain a murder conviction, irrespective of contradictions in other testimonies.
Conviction can be upheld based on the reliable testimony of a sole eyewitness, irrespective of the presence of corroborating evidence or independent witnesses, as long as the evidence is credible.
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....
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
