Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a criminal trial in which the appellant, Surajdeo Yadav, along with three others, was charged under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and separately under Section 27 of the Arms Act before the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. The prosecution alleged that on December 31, 1977, at about 6:30 P.M., in village Jamhore, police station Aurangabad, the appellant and others came to the house of Shamsher Singh (deceased) and the appellant, carrying a double-barrelled gun, fired two shots at the deceased causing instantaneous death. After the incident, Bhupinder Singh (PW6), cousin of the deceased, took the body to Aurangabad Hospital where police recorded his statement and registered a case against unknown persons. During investigation, six persons including the appellant were arrested and put in test identification parades. The appellant was identified by several witnesses as the person who fired at the deceased. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and acquitted the other accused. The appellant's appeal to the High Court was dismissed, leading to the present appeal by special leave. The appellant contended that he was falsely implicated on mere suspicion and that he was known to the witnesses because he had studied in a school in Jamhore, so the eye-witnesses would have named him if he was really involved. He also raised a grievance that the High Court did not advert to the defence case. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, particularly that of PW7 Balmiki Sharma, a bank employee who resided in the same building as the deceased. PW7 testified that he saw the appellant wearing trousers and jacket carrying a double-barrelled gun and firing two shots at Shamsher Singh. He identified the appellant in court and in the test identification parade. The trial court had accepted PW7's evidence as reliable but rejected the evidence of other eye-witnesses; the High Court criticized the trial court for rejecting the other witnesses. The Supreme Court agreed with both courts that PW7 was a natural, probable and disinterested witness and his evidence was unshaken in cross-examination. The Court found that the defence evidence of prior acquaintance was unconvincing because no suggestion was put to PW7 that he knew the appellant from before, PW7 was from district Gaya and came to Jamhore only a few months before the incident, and the defence witnesses were professional and unable to prove the school records. The Court held that the trial court's grounds for rejecting defence witnesses were cogent and convincing. It further agreed with the High Court that the trial court's rejection of other eye-witnesses was not sustainable, but this did not affect the conviction because PW7's testimony alone was sufficient. The Court concluded that the evidence of PW7 clearly established the appellant's guilt. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the appellant, who was on bail, was directed to surrender to serve the remainder of his sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act - Conviction Based on Eyewitness Testimony and Test Identification Parade - The appellant was identified by PW7, a bank employee residing at the incident premises, as the person who fired two shots from a double-barrelled gun killing the victim - Held that conviction can be sustained on the testimony of a single wholly reliable witness and the test identification parade corroborated identification (Paras 1-4). B) Evidence - Test Identification Parade - Identification of Accused - The Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade testified as PW3; the appellant was identified by several witnesses during the parade - The accused claimed prior acquaintance with witnesses because he studied in village school, which would render identification in parade meaningless - Held that defence evidence of prior acquaintance was unreliable because no suggestion was put to PW7 that he knew the appellant from before, and PW7 was from another district and came to village only few months before, so identification was valid (Paras 2-3). C) Criminal Trial - Defence Evidence - Rejection of Defence Witnesses - The trial court rejected defence witnesses as professional and unable to prove school records; the High Court and Supreme Court concurred that grounds were cogent and convincing - Held that defence evidence was rightly discarded and did not create reasonable doubt (Paras 3-4). D) Criminal Appeal - Concurrent Findings - Interference by Supreme Court - The Supreme Court examined evidence despite concurrent findings because of grievance that High Court did not advert to defence case; after perusal, found no reason to interfere - Held that concurrent findings of guilt based on credible eye-witness should not be disturbed absent perversity (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act is sustainable based on the testimony of a solitary eye-witness and test identification parade; whether the High Court failed to consider the defence evidence; whether the trial court erred in rejecting other eye-witnesses.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act were upheld. The appellant, who was on bail, was directed to surrender to his bail bonds to serve out the remainder of the sentence.
Law Points
- Conviction can be based on the testimony of a single wholly reliable eye-witness
- test identification parade corroborates identification
- defence evidence must be credible and relevant
- concurrent findings of lower courts should not be disturbed absent perversity
- Sections 302 and 149 IPC
- Section 27 Arms Act
