2012 Supreme(UK) 175

UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Barin Ghosh and U.C. Dhyani
Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2006
KULVEER SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL – Respondent
SATISH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL – Respondent
ALONG WITH Criminal Appeal No. 265 of 2006
Decided on : 18.05.2012

Headnote:(A) Minor discrepancies — Some minor contradictions in the testimony of PW1 and PW2 — That PW1 said he and PW2 were regular visitors to the farm, while PW2 said that they were occasional visitors — These minor discrepancies do not take away the merits of the prosecution story. (Paras 8)

       (B) Related witness — Natural witness — Credibility of — Victim and two eye witnesses were required to reach farm in the usual course of business — What they did almost everyday, they were doing it on that day also — They were no chance witnesses — Since they were related witnesses — Therefore, the Court was to be slow and cautious in accepting the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 — Held — Judging by this yardstick and even on close scrutiny of two eyewitnesses — Nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of PW 1 and PW 2 — There remains no doubt about direct involvement of appellant in the assassination. (Paras 24 and 26)

       (C) Criminal Trial — Common intention — Appellant submitted that the incident was not pre-planned and the appellant had no business to follow victim except with the idea of causing harm to victim — But inferred that the accused were chasing victim with predetermined mind with the object of eliminating him — It appeared to be their PLAN-I to hit the scooter by the first motorcycle, throw the victim down and injure or kill him in accident — And in case, the murder in the garb of accident did not succeed, PLAN-II was to fire upon the scooter rider by the riders of second motorcycle — Held — All the four accused shared common intention — And they were in league with each other. (Para 27)

       (D) Motive — In cases of direct evidence, proof of motive goes into oblivion. (Para 28)

       (E) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Number of witnesses — Held that it is really the quality of evidence that matters and not the quantity of evidence. (Para 30)

       (F) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 293 — Murder trial — Offence of — Conviction for — Criminal liability for — Inconsistency between ocular evidence and Ballistic Expert’s report vis-a-vis medical evidence — According to prosecution the riders of motorcycle no.2 fired shots on victim — Doctor who conducted post mortem said that there was one wound of entry and one wound of exit — Ballistic report said that two country made pistols were used — The most common factor amongst these three evidences, one thing is certain that the victim was hit by one pellet which pierced into his body and that ante mortem injury caused the death of victim — Now, whether the pellet that pierced the body of victim came from the country made pistol of accused/appellant or accused/absconder made no difference, for they shared common intention to kill victim — Therefore, criminal liability on accused/aappellant was charged for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC r/w Sec 34 IPC and not Sec 302 IPC only — Hence, criminal liability of accused/appellant, established beyond reasonable doubt — Therefore, no inconsistency between ocular evidence, Doctor’s report and Ballistic Expert’s report. (Para 31)

       (G) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 302 r/w Sec. 34 IPC and u/s 25 Arms Act — Offence punishable under — Conviction for — As per the prosecution eye witnesses PW1 and PW2 when the victim reached on bridge and turned towards his plot, four persons came on two motorcycles and one motorcycle hit the scooter of the victim — Before the victim could stand up, other two persons on the second motorcycle absconder and accused/appellant fired upon the victim with country made pistols — On raising alarm assailants ran away towards village after firing in the air — No delay in lodging the FIR — A country made pistol and empty cartridges were recovered from the possession of co-accused — There was therefore, no requirement of identification of appellant/accused as he was named in the FIR — Recovery of country made pistol and cartridges from the possession of co-accused and motorcycle of accused at the instance of co-accused proved — PW4 proved the report of Forensic Science Laboratory — On postmortem, doctor PW5 opined that the death of victim was caused by firearm — Medical evidence has corroborarted the oral evidence — The recovery of incriminating article used in the commission of crime was against appellant/accused — Oral evidence had it that both accuseds 1, 2 fired upon the victim — Ballistic report suggested that both the country made pistols were used and accordingly two pellets came out from two such pistols — Hence, participation of accused u/s 34 IPC, established.

        (Paras 1, 2, 3, 6, 10 to 15, 20 to 23)

       (H) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 302 r/w 34 and Arms Act, Sec. 25 — Offence under — Benefit of doubt — According to prosecution there were four persons in two motorcycles — The first motorcycle hit the scooter of victim — And the riders of second motorcycle fired upon the victim with country made pistol — The names of persons riding on first motorcycle were not disclosed in the FIR — Also, that the very arrest of the co-accused on the next day of incident did not help prosecution, as the same was neither any step towards the ‘identification’ of co-accused nor abrupt recovery of incriminating article from him was admissible under Indian Evidence Act — According to witnesses they had seen the accused and can recognise them but his identity could not be established in respect of his involvement in committing murder of victim — Therefore, in the given circumstances of the case unnamed and unidentified co-accused liable to be given benefit of doubt as the prosecution has not been able to prove charge with regard to offence punishable u/s 302 IPC r/w Sec 34 IPC against him to the hilt — But, charge for the offence punishable u/s 25 Arms Act proved.

        (Paras 35, 37, 38)

       ¼v½ lw{e folaxfr;k¡ & PW1 vkSj PW2 dh xokgh esa dqN lw{e folaxfr ikbZ xbZ & PW1 us dgk fd og vkSj PW2 QkeZ ij fu;fer tkrs Fks cfYd PW2 us dgk fd os dHkh dHkh vkxarqd Fks & ;g ekewyh fojks/kkHkkl vfHk;kstu dgkuh dh xq.koÙkk dks de ugha djrsA ¼izLrj 8½

       ¼c½ lEcU/kh xokg & izkÑfrd xokg & dh fo’oluh;rk ihfM+r o nksuksa p’enhn xokg jkstejkZ dh rjg QkeZ igq¡ps & tks os jkst djrs Fks] mUgksaus ?kVuk okys fnu Hkh djk & os ekSds ds xokg ugha Fks D;ksafd og lEcU/kh xokg Fks & blfy, vnkyr dks PW1 vkSj PW2 ds lk{;ksa dks Lohdkjus esa lrdZrk cjrh & PW1 vkSj PW2 dh xokgh dks ij[kus ij mlesa dksbZ vfu;ferrk ugha ikbZ xbZ vkSj vihykFkhZ dk gR;k esa izR;{k Hkkxhnkjh ds ckjs esa dksbZ lansg ughaA ¼izLrj 24 vkSj 26½

       ¼l½ vkijkf/kd ijh{k.k & lk>k bjknk & vihykFkhZ us ekuk dh ?kVuk dh dksbZ iwoZ ;kstuk ugha Fkh] mldk flQZ edln ihfM+r dks uqdlku igq¡pkuk Fkk & ij ik;k x;k fd vihykFkhZ ihfM+r dk ihNk tkucw>dj] ;kstuk iw.kZ mldh gR;k dkfjr djus ds fy, dj jgs Fks & mudk Plan-1 Fkk fd LdwVj dks igys eksVj lkbfdy ls Vdjkdj ihfM+r dks fxjk dj ekj Mkysa & vkSj vxj og dke;kc ugha gksrs rks Plan-2 Fkk fd nwljh eksVj lkbfdy ds lokj LdwVj lokj dh xksyh ekjdj gR;k dj nsaxs & blfy, pkjksa vijkf/k;ksa dk ,d vke bjknk Fkk] ihfM+r dk dRy djukA ¼izLrj 27½

       ¼n½ edln & izR;{k lcwrksa ds ekeyksa esa lcwr xqeukeh esa pyk tkrk gSA

        ¼izLrj 28½

       ¼;½ Hkkjrh; lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & xokgksa dh la[;k & lk{;ksa dh xq.koÙkk u fd mudh fxurh ek;us j[krh gSA ¼izLrj 30½

       ¼j½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 293 & gR;k ijh{k.k & gR;k dk vijk/k & n.M o vkijkf/kd nkf;Ro & lk{kkr lk{;] Ballistic fo’ks”kK fjiksVZ vkSj fpfdRlk lcwrksa ds chp vlaxfr & vfHk;kstu ds vuqlkj eksVj lkbfdy 2 ds lokjksa us ihfM+r ij xksyh pykbZ & MkW- ftlus iksLVekVZe fd;k] us dgk fd e`rd ds ‘kjhj ij ,d ?kko izfof”V dk o nwljk ckgj fudyus dk Fkk & Ballistic expert us dgk fd nks nslh fiLrkSy dk bLrseky fd;k x;k Fkk & ;g Li”V gS fd e`rd ,d xksyh ls ekjk x;k & xksyh ftlls e`R;q gqbZ og vijk/kh dh fiLrkSy ls pyh Fkh ;k HkxkSM+s vijkèkh dh fiLrkSy ls dksbZ ckr ugha D;ksafd lHkh vijkf/k;ksa dh ,d gh ea’kk Fkh e`rd dh e`R;q & blfy, vfHk;qDr ij vijkf/kd nkf;Ro ds fy, u/s 302 I.P.C. r/w Sec. 34, IPC ds rgr vkjksi yxk, x, u fd Sec. 302 I.P.C. & blfy, vfHk;qDr ij vkijkfèkd nkf;Ro cxSj fdlh lansg ds fl)A ¼izLrj 31½

       ¼y½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860] /kkjk 302 lifBr /kkjk 34 vkSj ‘kL= vf/kfu;e] èkkjk 25 & rgr vijk/k & n.M & vfHk;kstu lk{;ksa PW1, PW2 ds vuqlkj tc e`rd iqy ij igq¡pk vkSj mlus tehu dh vksj ns[kk rHkh pkj yksx eksVj lkbfdy ij vk,] ,d eksVj lkbfdy us e`rd ds LdwVj ij VDdj ekjh & blls igys fd e`rd [kM+k gks ikrk vfHk;qDr vkSj HkxkSM+s vfHk;qDr us nslh fiLrkSy ls e`rd ij xksyh pykbZ & vkSj gok esa xksyh pykrs gq, xk¡o dh vksj Hkkx x, & FIR ntZ djus esa dksbZ nsjh ugha & lg vfHk;qDr ds ikl ls nslh fiLrkSy vkSj nks dkjrwl ds dCts cjken & D;ksafd vijk/kh uketn Fkk vihykFkhZ dh igpku dh dksbZ vko’;drk ugha & PW4 us Qksjsafld iz;ksx’kkyk dh fjiksVZ dks lkfcr fd;k fpfdRlk lk{; us ekSf[kd lk{; dh iqf”V djh & nksuksa vfHk;qDrksa us xksyh pykbZ Fkh] bldh iqf”V Ballistic report us djh dh xksyh nksuksa fiLrkSyksa ls pyh Fkh rnuqlkj nks NjsZ ckgj vk, Fks] nks fiLrkSyksa ls & vfHk;qDrksa dh vijk/k esa Hkkxhnkjh u/s 34 IPC lkfcrA

        ¼izLrj 1] 2] 3] 6] 10 ls 15] 20 ls 23½

       ¼o½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860] /kkjk 302 lifBr /kkjk 34 vkSj ‘kL= vf/kfu;e] èkkjk 25 & vijk/k & lansg dk ykHk & pkj eksVj lkbfdy lokj Fks & igyh eksVj lkbfdy us e`rd ds LdwVj ij VDdj ekjh & cfYd nwljh eksVj lkbfdy lokjksa us e`rd ij xksyh pykbZ & igyh eksVj lkbfdy lokjksa dk uke FIR esa ntZ ugha & vxys fnu lg vfHk;qDr dh fxj¶rkjh ls vfHk;kstu i{k dks dksbZ enn ugha feyh u gh mlds ikl ls cjken phtsa lk{; vf/kfu;e esa Lohdk;Z & xokgksa ds vuqlkj mUgksaus lg vfHk;qDr dks ns[kk Fkk vkSj igpkuk Hkh ijUrq mldh vijk/k esa nks”kflf) lkfcr ugha & blfy, cxSj ukfer nks”kh dks ykHk fn;k tkrk gS D;ksafd vfHk;kstu mlds f[kykQ u/s 302 IPC r/w Sec. 34 IPC vijk/k flf) esa vlQy & ijUrq u/s 25 ‘kL= vfèkfu;e n.Muh; vijk/k lkfcrA ¼izLrj 35] 37] 38½