Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India considered four criminal appeals filed by the convicted accused against the judgment and order dated April 25, 1986 of the Patna High Court, which had dismissed their appeals and confirmed the conviction and life sentences imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patna on March 25, 1981. The accused were convicted under Sections 120B read with 302 and 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for conspiracy to murder and the murder of Professor Maheshwar Prasad Sharma. The prosecution case was that Yamuna Singh, the owner of a building in Langertoli, Patna, where the deceased rented a ground-floor tenement, had developed animosity towards the professor because the latter objected to the accused bringing women of easy virtue to the premises and had remarked that they were running a brothel. On January 26, 1979, a conspiracy was hatched at Yamuna Singh's room to eliminate the professor. Ramayan Singh, a Sanskrit teacher known to the deceased, was to sleep in the deceased's room and open the door upon a knock, uttering the words 'Bap Re Bap', after which the professor would come out and be killed. The conspiracy was overheard by Meena Kumari and Phulia Devi, who were present. In furtherance of the plan, Chitradeo Prasad Singh summoned Ashok Kumar Singh, who later became an approver. During the midnight, the absconding accused knocked the door; Ramayan Singh opened it and uttered the planned words; the professor came out; Yamuna Singh, Chitradeo Prasad Singh and Ashok Kumar Singh caught hold of him, while the absconding accused inflicted a blow with a Gupti on the left shoulder, causing him to fall and die. Yamuna Singh later fired a shot in the air near a telephone pole. The local police initially investigated but the case was later handed over to the CBI. A charge sheet was submitted under Sections 120B/302 and 308/34 IPC. The trial court separated the trial of the absconding accused and convicted the present appellants, sentencing each to life imprisonment. The High Court dismissed their appeals. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants did not dispute that the professor met a homicidal death. The main issue was whether the appellants were responsible for the murder. The defence argued that the evidence of approver Ashok Kumar Singh was untrustworthy and was not corroborated in material particulars, relying on Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar. They also challenged the evidence of Meena Kumari and Phulia Devi on grounds that they were women of easy virtue, were co-conspirators who did not disclose the plan, and were under the control of the investigating agency, making their evidence tailored. The Supreme Court, after examining the evidence, found the approver's testimony trustworthy, free from material omissions or contradictions vis-à-vis his statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and fully corroborated by the accounts of Meena Kumari and Phulia Devi. The court noted that both women described the conspiracy and the incident in the same sequence, and their evidence corroborated the approver in all material particulars. The court concluded that the appellants were active members of the conspiracy and committed the murder in pursuance thereof. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed all four appeals and upheld the conviction and life sentences. The judgment favoured the prosecution/state.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Approver's Evidence - Conviction based on testimony of approver requires corroboration in material particulars - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 120B, 302, 34; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 164 - The accused were convicted for conspiracy and murder primarily based on approver PW1 Ashok Kumar Singh; court held his evidence trustworthy, without material omissions or contradictions vis-à-vis Section 164 CrPC statement, and corroborated by PW22 and PW28; conviction upheld. Held that approver evidence was reliable and corroborated. (Paras 15-19) B) Criminal Law - Conspiracy - Proof of conspiracy may rest on direct evidence of persons who overheard plan and acts in furtherance - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 120B - The court found conspiracy hatched on 26.1.1979 to murder professor, corroborated by PW22 and PW28 who overheard, and acts by accused; held active members committed murder in pursuance. (Paras 6, 8, 17-19) C) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - role of each accused in catching hold, standing guard, opening door, using Gupti; application of joint liability - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 34 - Court upheld conviction under Section 302/34 as all accused acted in furtherance of common intention, with specific roles assigned; Held that there was common intention to murder. (Paras 8, 18, 19) D) Criminal Law - Testimony of Witnesses of Easy Virtue - Credibility cannot be discarded solely because witnesses are of easy virtue or maid servants - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 120B, 302, 34 - Defence challenged PW22 and PW28 as ladies of easy virtue and co-conspirators; court found their evidence reliable and fully corroborative; Held that their evidence is acceptable. (Para 19)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants/accused were responsible for the murder of Professor Maheshwar Prasad Sharma; whether the evidence of approver Ashok Kumar Singh (PW1) was trustworthy and corroborated in material particulars; whether conviction under Sections 120B/302 and 302/34 IPC was sustainable.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed all four criminal appeals and upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of each appellant under Sections 120B/302 and 302/34 IPC, finding the approver's evidence trustworthy and corroborated by material witnesses.
Law Points
- Conviction can be based on approver's evidence if trustworthy and corroborated in material particulars
- Evidence of witnesses of easy virtue not to be rejected merely on that ground
- Conspiracy can be proved by direct evidence of persons who overheard plan
- Common intention under Section 34 IPC requires participation in furtherance of common intention
- Testimony of approver under Section 164 CrPC must be consistent
