Case Note & Summary
The case arises from an incident where the complainant Jagannath (P.W.1) and his wife Kamlabai (P.W.8) along with their son deceased Laxminarayan and daughters-in-law were sleeping in their field house. Around midnight, nine accused allegedly assaulted them with lathis and other weapons, resulting in the death of Laxminarayan. The Trial Court convicted all nine accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and other offences. On appeal, the High Court acquitted five accused but maintained the conviction of the appellants (accused nos.2, 3, and 9). The Supreme Court examined the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.8, the only witnesses whose testimony was believed by the High Court. The Court found serious discrepancies: P.W.1 did not name several accused in his statement to the Executive Magistrate; P.W.8 admitted she could not identify which accused caused injuries to the deceased; both witnesses gave omnibus statements implicating all accused. The High Court had acquitted five accused on the same evidence, and the State did not challenge those acquittals. The Supreme Court held that there was no reason to treat the appellants differently and that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.8 was unreliable. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the conviction of the appellants (except deceased appellant no.1) was set aside, and they were acquitted. The appeal abated for deceased appellant no.1.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Interested Witnesses - Conviction based on testimony of parents of deceased requires careful scrutiny - Evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.8, being interested witnesses, was found to contain material contradictions and omissions regarding weapons and role of accused - Held that their testimony was unreliable and could not form the basis of conviction (Paras 6-10). B) Criminal Law - Parity - Acquittal of Co-Accused - Where the High Court acquitted five accused on the same evidence that implicated all nine, there was no reason to treat the appellants differently - Held that on ground of parity, the appellants were entitled to acquittal (Paras 10-11). C) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 157 - Dying Declaration as Former Statement - The statement recorded by Executive Magistrate as dying declaration of P.W.1 could be used under Section 157 to contradict his testimony - P.W.1's failure to name several accused in that statement created doubt (Para 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC can be sustained when the evidence of the key prosecution witnesses is inconsistent and the High Court has acquitted other similarly placed accused on the same evidence.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. Conviction of appellants (except deceased appellant no.1) set aside. Accused no.3 Boro and accused no.9 Shyam acquitted. Bail bonds cancelled. Appeal abated for deceased appellant no.1 Ramcharan.
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence
- Interested witnesses
- Omnibus allegations
- Parity in acquittal
- Dying declaration as former statement
- Section 157 Evidence Act
