Back
1997 Supreme(Raj) 379
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : P.C.JAIN,MOHD.YAMIN
ABU BAKRA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
Criminal Appeal 298 Of 1991
Decided On : 05/06/1997
SANDIP MEHTA, U.C.S.Singhvi
The testimony of a single eyewitness can be sufficient to convict a defendant of murder, even if other witnesses have turned hostile.
Headnote:
{'KEYWORD': 'Murder', 'SUBJECT': 'Homicide', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['Section 302, Indian Penal Code'], 'SUMMARY': "The court upheld the conviction of the accused for the murder of his sister, based on the testimony of the deceased's father, who was the sole eyewitness. The court found the witness's statement to be reliable and credible, despite the fact that other family members had turned hostile. The court also rejected the defense's argument that the witness could not have seen the murder from his vantage point, finding that he had a clear view of the crime scene when he stood up."}
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted of murdering his sister by severing her neck with an axe. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of the deceased's father, who was the only eyewitness to the crime. Other family members who were present at the scene turned hostile and did not cooperate with the prosecution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the testimony of the deceased's father was reliable and credible, and that it provided sufficient evidence to convict the accused of murder. The court also rejected the defense's argument that the witness could not have seen the murder from his vantage point, finding that he had a clear view of the crime scene when he stood up.
Issues: 1. Whether the testimony of the deceased's father was reliable and credible. 2. Whether the witness could have seen the murder from his vantage point.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court found that the testimony of the deceased's father was reliable and credible because he was the only eyewitness to the crime and his statement was consistent with the other evidence in the case. 2. The court found that the witness could have seen the murder from his vantage point because he had a clear view of the crime scene when he stood up.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the accused for the murder of his sister.
P. C. JAIN, J.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21-8-1991 passed by Shri S. N. Ojha, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Barmer in Sessions Case No. 25/91 whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted under S. 320, I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.
( 2 ) THE prosecution case lies in small compass. On 22-11-1990 Shahadi, Amir, Smt. Shammi, Abu Bakar and Ms. Shafiat went to their field in order to attend agriculture operations. At about 3. 30 p. m. Shahadi prepared tea and it was taken by Hadi and his brother Abu Bakra. Amir was taking his meal. Ms. Shafiat was pounding gwar ki phalis. After taking tea Abu Bakra lifted an axe and went towards Ms. Shafiat. All of a sudden they heard the cries of Ms. Shafiat. Thereupon all these persons went to the place where Ms. Shafiat was pounding the phalis. They found Ms. Shafiat in a dying condition. Mer neck had been severed from her body. At the same time Abu Bakra made good escape with the axe. It was, therefore, clear that Ms. Shafiat was done to death by the accused. Amir went to Khadin B. S. F. check post and reported the incident to Gumnam Singh (P. W. 1) who was inspector and in-charge of the post. Gumnam Singh, in turn, informed the police on telephone about the above matter. On receipt of this report, Ram Singh (P. W. 14), SHO P. S. , Gadra reached the place of occurrence. He saw the dead body of Ms. Shafiat. He recorded the statement of Amir (Ex. P-12) and on that basis registered case No. 64/90. He started investigation and inspected the site on 23-11-1990 and prepared Site Plan (Ex. P-7) and Site Memo (Ex. P-8 ). He also collected the blood stained and controlled soil and sealed the same. Inquest report (Ex. P-17) was prepared. The autopsy of Ms. Shafiat was conducted by Dr. Santosh Maheshwari (P. W. 14 ). According to the post-mortem report (Ex. P-3) Ms. Shafiat died on account of injuries caused to her vital parts. After investigation the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Barmer who committed the accused to the Court of Session under S. 209 for standing trial for the offence under S. 302, I. P. C.
( 3 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. In order to prove the accused guilty prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses. The statement of the accused was recorded under S. 313, Cr. P. C. The accused denied all the prosecution allegations. He did not head any defence evidence.
( 4 ) GUMNAM Singh (P. W. 1) proved the fact that at the B. S. F. Check Post Amir came and reported about the incident. He then informed the police. The eye-witnesses namely, Hadi Khan (P. W. 2) Shammi (P. W. 5), Kayam (P. W. 6), Hada Khan (P. W. 7) have all turned hostile. In this way the only eye-witness who has deposed in favour of the prosecution is the father of the deceased. It may be mentioned that the deceased Ms. Shafiat was the real sister of the accused. Before the learned Sessions Judge, it was not disputed that Ms. Shafiat died on account of injuries caused to her vital parts. Hence there was no dispute that Ms. Shafiats death was homicidal. The learned Sessions Judge critically examined the statement of the solitary eye-witness Amir and found it reliable. The motive for causing the murder of Ms. Shafiat baffled the learned Sessions Judge but otherwise he found the statement of Amir absolutely reliable for proving the offence under S. 302, I. P. C. against the accused. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced the accused as above.
( 5 ) WE have heard Shri Sandeep Mehta for the accused/appellant and the learned P. P. Shri Sandeep Mehta has assailed the conviction and sentence of the accused/appellant on the ground that in the instant case the important eye-witnesses namely, Sadhi Khan P. W. 2. Shammi P. W. 5, Kayum P. W. 6 and Khadi Khan P. W. 7 have turned hostile. They have not at all
