2022 Supreme(All) 935

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Rohtash Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.8082 of 2008 with Criminal Appeal No.8081 of 2008 with Criminal Appeal No.8137 of 2008 with Criminal Appeal No.7626 of 2008 with Criminal Appeal No.7889 of 2008 with Criminal Appeal No.6973 of 2008
Decided On : 12-09-2022

Interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable and should be scrutinized with care but cannot be rejected merely on the ground of being partisan. Minor discrepancies and contradictions should not be given undue emphasis, and the evidence should be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The absence of motive is of no consequence when direct trustworthy evidence of the witness as to the commission of the offence is available.

Headnote:

MURDER - CRIMINAL LAW - IPC 148, 302/149, 120-B - The judgment and order dated 30.09.2008 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.5, Aligarh in S.T. No.934 of 2004 (State vs. Kaptan Singh and others) arises from Crime No.122 of 2003, under Sections 148, 302/149 & 120-B I.P.C. The appellants were convicted and sentenced for a period of 18 months rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 I.P.C.; life imprisonment u/s 302 readwith section 149 I.P.C. with fine of Rs.5000/- for each of the appellants, and in default of payment of fine to undergo three months additional imprisonment. All the sentences are to run concurrently.

Fact of the Case:

The prosecution case in brief is that informant Sanjeev Kumar lodged an F.I.R. on 04.06.2003 at about 13:25 P.M. at the Police Station Khair, District Aligarh being brother of deceased Bablu and nephew of deceased Harveer Singh. The written report was filed by him stating therein that on 18.03.2003 Manveer S/o. Om Prakash, resident of his village, was murdered wherein his brother Banti and father Jugveer Singh and other persons of the village were implicated falsely by the brother of the deceased Manveer namely Kaptan Singh. As a result his brother and father were lodged in jail. On 04.06.2003, the date was fixed for hearing of their bail applications in relation to which the informant, his brother Bablu @ Virendar Singh, his uncle Harveer Singh @ Munna, one Alchendra Singh and Subhash went to Aligarh to do pairvi of the case but hearing was adjourned. His uncle Harveer Singh @ Munna, brother Bablu @ Virendar Singh on one motorcycle and the informant, Alchendra Singh and Subhash on another motorcycle were returning to their village Bisara. Bablu and Harveer Singh were ahead of them and when they reached near Lavkush Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Andala, a Maruti Car bearing no. DL 2CB-2483 crossed the motorcycle of the informant. They saw that it was being driven by Bhoora S/o. Nepal Singh R/o Bisara and wherein Kaptan Singh S/o. Om Prakash, Om Prakash S/o. Raghunath Singh, Tikam Singh S/o. Pratap Singh, Rajan @ Rajendra Singh S/o. Satyaveer residents of the same village and Rohtash S/o. Shanker Singh (son of phuphi of Kaptan Singh) resident of Sarua Ka Nagla Police Station Chandaus were sitting. After crossing the bike of the informant, they started firing indiscriminately at the brother and uncle of the informant namely Bablu and Harveer Singh who were on the motorcycle at the turning of Lavkush Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya at that time. Their motorcycle fell into the pit and both the deceased ran to escape but the accused persons came down from the car, surrounded them and killed both on the spot. The informant and other two persons witnessed the incident hiding there but could not gather courage to go ahead. The accused persons went away in the car while making fire creating terror on the spot.

Finding of the Court:

The trial court found the appellants guilty based on the evidence available on record, ruling out the possibility of concoction. The court held that the motive for the murder was proved, the witness being a relative and interested was reliable and trustworthy, and the F.I.R. was lodged promptly without any delay, ruling out the possibility of it being ante-time. The court also found that the place of occurrence and the cause of death due to firearm injury could not be disputed. The court concluded that the appeals were devoid of merit and dismissed them.

Issues: The questions considered by the court included whether there was motive to commit the murder of the deceased persons, the reliability and trustworthiness of the witness who was a relative and interested, the impact of enmity on the witness's testimony, the significance of the absence of independent witnesses, and the alleged ante-time lodging of the F.I.R.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable and should be scrutinized with care but cannot be rejected merely on the ground of being partisan. The court also emphasized that minor discrepancies and contradictions should not be given undue emphasis and that the evidence should be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The court also ruled that motive becomes insignificant when direct evidence establishes the crime, and that the absence of motive is of no consequence when direct trustworthy evidence of the witness as to the commission of the offence is available. The court also noted that minor contradictions, inconsistencies, or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence.

Final Decision: The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh was affirmed, and the appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed. The appellant Teekam Singh was directed to be taken into custody forthwith and sent to jail to serve out the remaining sentence.