2006 Supreme(All) 2976

[2007(1) ADJ 2 (NOC)(DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE: IMTIYAZ MURTAZA AND M. CHAUDHARY, JJ.
ISTKHAR …..Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. …..Opposite Party
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 5825 and 5704 of 2005, decided on 10th November, 2006)

Headnote:(A) (Indian) Penal Code, 186O—Sections 3021149 and 148—Death sentence—Reference for confirmation of—Four persons were killed in a broad day light incident—Cause of death of victim was shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries—Prosecution examined eleven witnesses—Accused armed with illicit weapons reached there started indiscriminate firing with their respective weapons— Both eye-witnesses have supported prosecution case in detail—Facts fully prove time of lodging of report—FIR was promptly lodged—Contains time of occurrence, motive and manner of crimes, names of accused etc.—Place of occurrence is also proved by fact that I.O. had collected blood stained earth from near dead bodies—­Motive of crime proved—Eye-witness account is also corroborated by medical evidence—No independent witness examined—Testimony of relative witnesses cannot always be discarded—Minor discrepancies not to affect prosecution case­—Both eye-witnesses stood cross-examination extensively—Place of incident proved beyond reasonable doubt—Any irregularity during investigation ought not to be treated ground of rejection of prosecution case—Non-examination of scribe not material as FIR promptly lodged—Special report under Section 157 of CrPC not sent forthwith—Such technicality ought not to outweigh course of justice—­Conviction against appellant upheld—But death sentence converted into life imprisonment.

       (B) Witness—Relative witness—Testimony of—Evidentiary value—Their testimony cannot be rejected on ground that they are related to deceased.

       (C) Witness—Eye-witness—Evidentiary value of—Cannot be accepted only merely because weapons in hands of individual accused are not specified.

       (D) Evidence—Appreciation of—While appreciating the evidence of a witness—Minor discrepancies on trivial matters without affecting core of prosecution case—Ought not to prompt the Court to reject evidence in its entirety.

       (E) Investigation—Any irregularity during investigation—Ought not to be treated as a ground to reject prosecution case.

       (F) Evidence—Non-examination of scribe—When not material—When FIR promptly lodged—Which contained name of accused, witnesses and scribe.