Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
Chandan - Appellant
Versus
The State (Delhi Admn.) – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 788 Of 2012
Decided On : 05-04-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Conviction and sentence – Accused was caught same day in vicinity itself along with knife which was the weapon used in commission of crime – Forensic report and other evidences show that this was knife which was recovered from possession of sole accused and was used in commission of crime – Blood of deceased was found to be matching with blood found on knife which was recovered from accused/appellant – Head Constable is a witness to this recovery – Murder, arrest of accused and recovery of knife from him happened in quick succession, with a very little time gap – Entire evidence put together by prosecution does establish guilt of accused beyond a reasonable doubt – Both Trial Court as well as Appellate Court have rightly held that prosecution has proved their case as such – Since this is a case of eyewitness where there is nothing to discredit eye-witness, motive itself is of little relevance – No reason to interfere with orders of Trial Court and that of High Court – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 3, 4, 5 and 6)
(B) Criminal Law – Motive – Evidentiary value – When ocular testimony inspires confidence of court, prosecution is not required to establish motive – Mere absence of motive would not impinge on testimony of a reliable eye-witness – Motive is an important factor for consideration in a case of circumstantial evidence – But when there is direct eye witness, motive is not significant. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
Appellant before this Court was convicted under Section 302 of IPC. Conviction and sentence have been upheld by High Court in appeal. As per the prosecution it is a case of a daylight murder with a reliable eye-witness.
Findings of Court:
Interim order dated 09.05.2012 granting bail to appellant stands vacated. Appellant, who is presently on bail, is directed to surrender before Trial Court within a period of four weeks from today. A copy of this Judgment shall be sent to Trial Court to ensure that appellant undergoes remaining part of his sentence.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)
1. The appellant before this Court was convicted under Section 302 of IPC. The conviction and sentence have been upheld by the High Court in appeal. As per the prosecution it is a case of a daylight murder with a reliable eye-witness.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.05.1993 at about 8:15 pm while PW-2, who was sister-in-law of the deceased was returning from Ram Bazar, the deceased and the accused were walking a few steps ahead of her. After a few minutes she saw the two, i.e. the deceased Rakesh and Chandan, grappling with each other and then she saw the accused stabbing the deceased multiple times with the knife he was carrying. The deceased fell on the ground and the accused/appellant fled away. The deceased, Rakesh, was first taken to the adjacent clinic which was a private clinic of Dr. Kalra in the vicinity, where they were advised to take him to Hindu Rao hospital which was the nearest hospital where an emergency treatment could be given to the deceased. By the time the deceased reached the hospital he was declared dead. Post-mortem was conducted on the deceased the next day i.e. on 29.05.1993, and the following ante-mortem injuries were detected:
2. An incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x? vertically present just below an moidal to the left nipple.
3. An incised wound 3 cm. x 1.5 cm x? transversally places on the middle on left arm over anterolateral surface. The medial end was actually cut.
4. An incised wound 1.5 cm. x. 0.8 cm. x ? transversally placed on the back of let arm upper part. The posterior end of the injury was actually cut.
Injury No. 3 and 4 were found to be communicating with each other.
5. An incised wound 2.5 cm x 1.5 x ? vertically placed on the left lateral chest wall on the seventhribs, lower and was acute.
6. An incised wound 20. cm. x 1.5 cm. x ? sprindle shape on the top of let shoulder.
7. An incised wound 2 cm. x 0.5 cm. x muscle deep on the left scapular area.
8. An incised wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x? placed vertically on the left renal angle.”
It was further observed:
“Injury no. 1 on the chest was only muscle deep. So was injury No. 2 Injury No. 5 had entered left chest cavity through 7th intercostals space and was directed upwards and medially where it involved pericardium and tip of the left ventricle of the hear…
Injury no. 5 was sufficient the ordinarly course of nature to cause death. Death was due to shock and haemorrhage consequent to injuries…
In my opinion, injuries found on the body of deceased Rakesh were possible with this weapon. I had also made sketch of the said weapon along with P.M. report which is Ex.PW9/A which is signed me and is correct.
The weapon knife Ex.Pl is taken out. The weapon Ex. Pl shown to me in the court is the name with was produced before me police in sealed parcel at the time P.M. and the injury could be caused with Ex.Pl.”
An FIR was registered on the date of incident itself i.e., 28.05.1993, at Police Station, Kashmere Gate, Delhi on the statement of PW-2, the complainant, where she narrated the incident as already stated above. The police after investigation filed the chargesheet against the sole accused, Chandan, under Section 302 IPC. After committal of the case to the Sessions, 18 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The star witness of the prosecution was PW-2, who was the eyewitness. She was put to a lengthy cross-examination by the defence but nothing has come out which may discredit this witness. This witness in her testimony narrates the entire sequence of events as to how the accused stabbed the deceased to death and how she watched from a short distance the act being committed before her, and how all this happened in quick time.
3. The accused, it must be stated here, was caught the same day in the vicinity itself along with the knife, which was the weapon, used in the commission of the crime. The f
Motive – Motive is an important factor for consideration in a case of circumstantial evidence – But when there is direct eye witness, motive is not significant.
A criminal conviction can be sustained solely on the testimony of a solitary eyewitness under Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, provided the testimony is reliable, unshaken during cross-examina....
A conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC can be upheld on the reliable testimony of a single eyewitness, corroborated by medical evidence.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of a strong motive does not weaken the case when there is clear and reliable evidence of eyewitnesses, and the nature of the of....
Point of Law : “absence of any material on record to show that prosecution witness has any enmity with the accused, his evidence cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground of relationship, generall....
The credibility of ocular testimonies, corroborative evidence, and motive for the crime were central to establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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
