Conviction for murder upheld due to credible eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence, demonstrating defendant's shared intention in the crime.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 302 read with Section 34 - Arms Act - Sections 25 and 27 - Conviction for murder of Trilok resulting in life imprisonment and fines imposed - Evidence presented by eyewitnesses and forensic analysis substantiated the prosecution's case. (Para 1, 22)

(B) Eyewitness Testimony - Conviction cannot be solely based on doubts regarding eyewitness reliability or FIR registration; corroborated evidence affirms eyewitness credibility. (Para 18)

(C) Common Intention - Being present at the crime scene while armed supports inference of shared intention among co-accused. (Para 20)

Facts of the case:
Convicts charged with murder during a confrontation at a sports complex; reliance on testimonies of witnesses, forensic evidence revealed match with firearms. (Para 1, 21)

Findings of Court:
Conviction sustained as the testimonies and forensic evidence showed clear linkage to the crime. (Para 22)

Issues: Reliability of eyewitnesses and adequacy of circumstantial evidence for conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: Conviction upheld based on substantial corroborated evidence; refusal to participate in TIP considered minimal against credible witness testimony. (Para 22)

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of the case introduction and convictions. (Para 1)
2. arguments questioning the reliability of key witnesses. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 19 , 20)
3. details of investigation and forensic evidence. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 16)
4. court's reasoning and validation of witness reliability. (Para 18 , 21)
5. final judgment and order concerning appeals. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT

Mukta Gupta, J. By the Crl.A. 891/2017, appellant Monu Singh, and by Crl.A.103/218, appellants Rohan Chauhan and Mohit Chauhan challenge the impugned judgment dated 13th July, 2017, whereby they have been convicted for murder of one Trilok; and order on sentence dated 21st July, 2017, directing all the three convicts to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- each, and in default simple imprisonment for 3 months, for offence punishable u/s. 302 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code ("IPC"); and also directing convicts Rohan & Mohit to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years alongwith fine of Rs.3,000/- each, and in default whereof, simple imprisonment for 1 month for offence punishable u/s.27 Arms Act. Accused Anuj Kumar Sharma was acquitted of charges u/s.25 Arms Act & S.201 IPC vide the impugned judgment.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant Monu Singh assails the conviction on the grounds that although the eye witnesses of the incident were Ct. Sunil (PW-6) and Ct. Deepak Yadav (PW-22), however the FIR was not registered on their statements but on the statement of Dinesh Tokas (PW-5). SI Manoj Yadav (PW-35) stated that when he reached the spot, Ct. Sunil and Ct. Deepak Yadav were present, however instead of recording their statement, he alongwith Ct. Vijay Pal (PW-33) went to the hospital. This shows that Ct. Sunil and Ct. Deepak Yadav were not the eye witnesses, however were later shown as eye witnesses.

3. It is contended on behalf of appellant Monu Singh that Ct. Sunil is not a reliable witness as his testimony is neither corroborated by the other eye witness Ct. Deepak Yadav (who was later declared hostile) nor by the medical evidence. As per Ct. Sunil, the deceased had received 2 gunshot injuries, but as per the PM Report (Ex.PW28/A), the deceased received 4 gunshot injuries. Further, Ct. Sunil despite being a home-guard did not try to save the deceased and rather fled away from the spot. Version of Ct. Sunil cannot be further relied upon as he himself stated that he ran away from the spot and even could not clarify whether he ran away on foot or vehicle.

4. As per the appellant Monu, Dinesh Tokas did not give any description of the assailants in the FIR and his presence after the incident is highly doubtful. As per Dinesh Tokas, he received a call from Ravinder (PW-7) that somebody had shot his father and only when he was going towards the complex and had reached the gate of sports complex that he saw three boys running towards the village. This evidence of Dinesh Tokas is unreliable and concocted. Further, Dinesh Tokas mentioned about one Sardarji who was the plant operator of the swimming pool, but he has not been cited as a witness by the prosecution. Dinesh Tokas had initially raised his suspicion on Jitender Tokas and Deepak Tokas, however no credible investigation was done on that aspect. Further, blood stained clothes of Dinesh Tokas & Joginder (PW-23) as also the Honda City Car were not seized by the Police.

5. It is further contended that the appellant Monu rightly refused TIP as the prosecution witnesses Ct. Sunil and Ravinder also stated that the appellant had been shown to the witnesses before the TIP. Even as per the case of the prosecution, the appellants were taken to the place of occurrence and to the rented room after their apprehension in the night of 6th June, 2011 at around 11.15 PM and hence their refusal to undergo TIP was justified. Further, Ravinder during his examination-in-chief stated that he saw two boys quarrelling with deceased and identified them as Monu and Roha