2019 Supreme(All) 216

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
SUDHIR AGARWAL, OM PRAKASH, JJ.
Sangam Pasi and Others - Appellant
Versus
State of UP - Respondent
Capital Cases No. 6231 of 2016; Government Appeal No. 808 of 2017
Decided On : 14-02-2019

The prosecution was able to prove the presence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident beyond reasonable doubt. They are the inmates and most natural and probable witnesses. Non-examination of other independent witnesses itself is not sufficient to disbelieve their statement. Statement of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 also finds support with medical evidence. Prosecution also proved motive against accused appellants; there was sufficient source of light at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident; existence of FIR at the time mentioned therein is probable and believable one; P.W.-5 was present in the village in the night concerned; he reached immediately at the place of occurrence after the incident; involvement of accused appellants have been clearly and consistently supported by P.W.-1 and P.W.-2; laches on part of Investigating Officer are not material as they do not go to the root of the case; contradiction, omission, exaggeration occurred in the statement of the prosecution witnesses are also not fatal to the prosecution case; P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are rustic witnesses, thus, in the considered view of the Court, the Trial Court has rightly held guilty to the accused appellants for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Finding of Trial Court regarding guilt of the accused appellants for the aforesaid offence is based on correct appreciation of facts and evidence and no interference is required by the Court.

Headnote:

The Court held that the prosecution was able to prove the presence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident beyond reasonable doubt. They are the inmates and most natural and probable witnesses. Non-examination of other independent witnesses itself is not sufficient to disbelieve their statement. Statement of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 also finds support with medical evidence. Prosecution also proved motive against accused appellants; there was sufficient source of light at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident; existence of FIR at the time mentioned therein is probable and believable one; P.W.-5 was present in the village in the night concerned; he reached immediately at the place of occurrence after the incident; involvement of accused appellants have been clearly and consistently supported by P.W.-1 and P.W.-2; laches on part of Investigating Officer are not material as they do not go to the root of the case; contradiction, omission, exaggeration occurred in the statement of the prosecution witnesses are also not fatal to the prosecution case; P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are rustic witnesses, thus, in the considered view of the Court, the Trial Court has rightly held guilty to the accused appellants for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Finding of Trial Court regarding guilt of the accused appellants for the aforesaid offence is based on correct appreciation of facts and evidence and no interference is required by the Court.

Fact of the Case:

Three persons were done to death in the family. P.W.-1 got the written report prepared with the help of P.W.-5 immediately within few minutes. Certainly she would have lost control and, therefore, if the facts stated during trial on the point of motive were not mentioned in the written report (Ext. Ka-1), statement of prosecution witnesses on point of motive cannot be disbelieved.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the prosecution was able to prove the presence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident beyond reasonable doubt. They are the inmates and most natural and probable witnesses. Non-examination of other independent witnesses itself is not sufficient to disbelieve their statement. Statement of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 also finds support with medical evidence. Prosecution also proved motive against accused appellants; there was sufficient source of light at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident; existence of FIR at the time mentioned therein is probable and believable one; P.W.-5 was present in the village in the night concerned; he reached immediately at the place of occurrence after the incident; involvement of accused appellants have been clearly and consistently supported by P.W.-1 and P.W.-2; laches on part of Investigating Officer are not material as they do not go to the root of the case; contradiction, omission, exaggeration occurred in the statement of the prosecution witnesses are also not fatal to the prosecution case; P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are rustic witnesses, thus, in the considered view of the Court, the Trial Court has rightly held guilty to the accused appellants for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Finding of Trial Court regarding guilt of the accused appellants for the aforesaid offence is based on correct appreciation of facts and evidence and no interference is required by the Court.

Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution was able to prove the presence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident beyond reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the prosecution was able to prove the motive against the accused appellants? 3. Whether the existence of FIR at the time mentioned therein is probable and believable? 4. Whether the statement of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 finds support with medical evidence? 5. Whether the laches on part of Investigating Officer are material? 6. Whether the contradiction, omission, exaggeration occurred in the statement of the prosecution witnesses are fatal to the prosecution case?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the prosecution was able to prove the presence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident beyond reasonable doubt. They are the inmates and most natural and probable witnesses. Non-examination of other independent witnesses itself is not sufficient to disbelieve their statement. Statement of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 also finds support with medical evidence. Prosecution also proved motive against accused appellants; there was sufficient source of light at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident; existence of FIR at the time mentioned therein is probable and believable one; P.W.-5 was present in the village in the night concerned; he reached immediately at the place of occurrence after the incident; involvement of accused appellants have been clearly and consistently supported by P.W.-1 and P.W.-2; laches on part of Investigating Officer are not material as they do not go to the root of the case; contradiction, omission, exaggeration occurred in the statement of the prosecution witnesses are also not fatal to the prosecution case; P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are rustic witnesses, thus, in the considered view of the Court, the Trial Court has rightly held guilty to the accused appellants for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Finding of Trial Court regarding guilt of the accused appellants for the aforesaid offence is based on correct appreciation of facts and evidence and no interference is required by the Court. 2. The Court held that the prosecution was able to prove the motive against the accused appellants. 3. The Court held that the existence of FIR at the time mentioned therein is probable and believable. 4. The Court held that the statement of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 finds support with medical evidence. 5. The Court held that the laches on part of Investigating Officer are not material. 6. The Court held that the contradiction, omission, exaggeration occurred in the statement of the prosecution witnesses are not fatal to the prosecution case.

Final Decision: The Court held that the prosecution was able to prove the presence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident beyond reasonable doubt. They are the inmates and most natural and probable witnesses. Non-examination of other independent witnesses itself is not sufficient to disbelieve their statement. Statement of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 also finds support with medical evidence. Prosecution also proved motive against accused appellants; there was sufficient source of light at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident; existence of FIR at the time mentioned therein is probable and believable one; P.W.-5 was present in the village in the night concerned; he reached immediately at the place of occurrence after the incident; involvement of accused appellants have been clearly and consistently supported by P.W.-1 and P.W.-2; laches on part of Investigating Officer are not material as they do not go to the root of the case; contradiction, omission, exaggeration occurred in the statement of the prosecution witnesses are also not fatal to the prosecution case; P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are rustic witnesses, thus, in the considered view of the Court, the Trial Court has rightly held guilty to the accused appellants for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Finding of Trial Court regarding guilt of the accused appellants for the aforesaid offence is based on correct appreciation of facts and evidence and no interference is required by the Court.