Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal before the Supreme Court of India against the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Rai Singh, for offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985. The prosecution alleged that in the early hours of January 30, 1987, the appellant murdered Smt. Parkashi, wife of Attar Singh, in her house in village Chhajpur, district Panipat, Haryana, using a country-made pistol. The deceased was sleeping with her two children while her husband was away in Panipat where he worked as a Chowkidar. The appellant knocked at the door, enquired about the husband's whereabouts, and stated that he wanted to take revenge because the husband had assaulted him a fortnight earlier. When the deceased refused to accompany him, a scuffle ensued during which the appellant fired pistol, causing her death, and fled. The son, Mohan Singh (PW3), lodged the first information report after his father returned. The investigating officer, S.I. Mehar Singh (PW7), conducted the inquest, sent the body for post-mortem, prepared a site plan, and seized blood-stained earth. The appellant was arrested, and based on his statement, the pistol and a live cartridge were recovered from under a tree near Sanauli barrier. The pistol and pellets recovered from the body were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban; the FSL opined that the pistol was in working order and that the pellets could be parts of the empty cartridge case found embedded in the barrel. The prosecution also led evidence of motive, alleging that the appellant and deceased had an illicit relationship originating from their native villages in Uttar Pradesh, and that a fortnight before the murder, the deceased's husband had turned the appellant out after assaulting him with a lathi. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the murder charge but admitted the illicit intimacy and his presence in the house that night, contending that he was called by the deceased and that when her husband returned early morning, he tried to kill the appellant, who somehow escaped. The trial court convicted the appellant, and in appeal the Supreme Court examined whether the evidence justified the conviction. The Court noted that Dr. Gupta (PW1), who performed the post-mortem, found a lacerated wound over the sternum and multiple metallic pieces embedded inside, with multiple lacerated wounds over the posterior wall of the pericardium, and opined that injuries were caused by a firearm and were sufficient to cause death. The Court found that the deceased's son and daughter, PW3 and PW4, were the most natural and probable witnesses to an incident that occurred inside the house at an unearthly hour; despite searching cross-examination, the defence could not discredit them. Their evidence was amply corroborated by the fact that the body of their mother was found in the house with firearm injuries, which according to the FSL report could have been caused by the recovered pistol that the appellant kept concealed under a tree. The Court therefore held that there was no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, dismissed the appeal, and upheld the conviction and sentence. The judgment reaffirmed that child eyewitnesses to a domestic murder, if credible and corroborated by forensic and recovery evidence, can sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC and related provisions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Conviction under Section 302 IPC - Reliability of Child Eyewitnesses - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The deceased was murdered in her house at an unearthly hour when her husband was away, leaving only her son and daughter as natural witnesses. The Supreme Court held that despite searching cross-examination, the defence could not discredit their testimony, and their account was corroborated by the discovery of the dead body with firearm injuries. Held that the trial court's reliance on their evidence was justified. (Paras 5-6) B) Criminal Law - Arms Act and TADA - Recovery and Forensic Corroboration - Arms Act, 1959, Section 25 and Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, Section 6 - The pistol was recovered pursuant to the appellant's statement from under a tree, and forensic science laboratory report opined that the pellets recovered from the body could be parts of the empty cartridge case embedded in the barrel. The Supreme Court held that this recovery and FSL opinion corroborated the ocular evidence and sustained the conviction under Arms Act and TADA. (Paras 2(c), 4-6) C) Criminal Law - Motive and Admission - Illicit Relationship and Previous Assault - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The appellant admitted to an illicit relationship with the deceased and to having been assaulted by her husband a fortnight earlier, but denied murder, claiming he was called by the deceased and escaped when the husband attacked him. The Court found the prosecution's evidence of motive and the appellant's presence at the time of murder sufficiently established, and rejected the defence version. Held that the conviction was justified. (Paras 2(d), 3, 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the evidence of the deceased's children (PW3 and PW4) was reliable to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt; whether the recovery of the pistol and empty cartridge along with FSL report sufficiently corroborated the ocular evidence to sustain conviction under Section 302 IPC, Section 25 Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 6 TADA, 1985.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit. The conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC, Section 25 Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 6 TADA, 1985 were upheld.
Law Points
- Reliability of child eyewitnesses in domestic murder
- corroboration by forensic science report on recovered weapon
- conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act
- 1959 read with Section 6 TADA
- natural witnesses to incident at odd hours
