Point of Law: Offence of Murder – Conviction upheld - Unbroken chain of circumstances unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused - Chemical analysis report also supports the prosecution case thus providing scientific evidence to nail the accused as the perpetrator of the crime.

JUDGMENT :

Vinod Chandran, J.

Pliable and prevaricating witnesses question the credibility of the criminal judicial system and test the skill of adjudicators and stretch their patience to breaking point. An inept prosecution and an equally abject defense does not serve the cause of justice delivery; which problems are at times compounded by an indifferent Court. The trial of a seemingly open and shut case, of a murder committed in the open and in public view has been complicated by witnesses of the aforementioned category. An enquiry into whether it is on purpose or on threat or purchase, obviously is beyond our ken. But all the same, we have to sift the grain from the chaff and find out the truth as discernible from the evidence on record.

2. The appellant-accused, according to the prosecution, stabbed the deceased on account of the latter having taken up cudgels against the illicit liquor sale conducted by the former. The immediate provocation is also alleged to be a shove delivered by the deceased to the accused, on his approaching a fast food shop wherein the accused was also present. The accused took the knife kept in the fast food shop and stabbed his alleged enemy to death. This was in the presence of other customers and the fast food shop owner. The accused also injured PW1, who gave the First Information Statement, in the scuffle that ensued. The victim succumbed to his injuries and the appellant was booked as the aggressor-accused.

3. In the trial, PW1 to PW14 were examined and Exts.P1 to P20 were marked. Material objects MO1 to MO7 were also produced and marked. The learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the evidence led, which included the recovery of the weapon and the dress worn by the accused as also the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three lakh only) as fine with default sentence of RI for 2 years. He was further sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with default sentence of RI for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. If the fine amount is remitted or recovered, it was to be disbursed to the wife of the deceased Babu as compensation U/s 357(1)(b) of Cr.PC. The sentences aforesaid were directed to run concurrently.

4. Sri.Sunny Mathew, learned Counsel appeared for the accused and Sri.S U Nazar, learned Senior Public Prosecutor appeared for the State. On behalf of the accused it was argued that there is absolutely no evidence to convict him. PW1 & 2, who were arrayed as eye-witnesses turned turtle in cross-examination and gave an entirely different version of the incident. Though they were declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution, it was not done in the manner known to law. In fact the Court should have found that both the said witnesses were unbelievable and eschewed their testimonies from consideration. [2015 (9) SCC 588 Mishra v. State of Utharakhand] was relied on to challenge the manner in which the witnesses were examined after declaring them to be hostile. The contradictions put to PW1 was from the FIS and not from the Section 161 statement. The contradictions were not marked either by the prosecution or by the Court nor were these contradictions proved by putting those to the Investigating Officer. There is hence no proof of the statements recorded by the Police under Section 161. [AIR 1976 SC 294 Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration and 1976 AIR 202 Bhagwansingh v. The State of Haryana] were relied on to argue that the witnesses stood thoroughly discredited. The finding of the trial Court that PWs 1 & 2 corroborate each other cannot at all be countenanced when the evidence relied on is of the same brand or suffered from the same infirmity, as held by a Division Bench of this Court in [1985 KL