Case Note & Summary
The appeal by special leave arose from the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan affirming the conviction of four appellants for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg, had convicted the appellants and sentenced them to life imprisonment in Sessions Case No. 8/89, while acquitting four co-accused. The prosecution case was that on 27.11.1988 at about 11 AM, the deceased Jyoti Ram was going from village Baroli Dhau to village Pasopa to purchase a water pipe, followed by his brother Bohari PW1. The appellants, along with four acquitted co-accused, emerged from a mustard field and surrounded the deceased. Appellant Arjun exhorted the others to kill Jyoti Ram, whereupon all assaulted him with weapons; the appellants were armed with Farsas and a Ballam, while the co-accused had lathis. Puran PW3, who was in a nearby field, and Bhagwan Sahai PW2, Harish Chandra PW4, and Sat Pal Singh PW7, who had just come out of the Panchayat Bhawan after a meeting, rushed to the spot. The assailants fled. A written report was lodged by Sat Pal Singh PW7 at 12:40 PM at Police Station Kama, leading to FIR Ext. P9. Jyoti Ram died while being taken to Kama hospital. Dr. Mangal Ram PW8 performed the post-mortem and found incised wounds, stab wounds consistent with a lance, and blunt injuries; injuries 1 and 2 were independently sufficient to cause death due to brain haemorrhage and shock. The appellants contended that there was long-standing enmity and pending criminal proceedings between the parties, and that the prosecution witnesses were close relatives or associates of the deceased, hence false implication. They also argued that Bahori PW1 could not have witnessed the occurrence as he was taking meals, that the Panchayat meeting witnesses were inside until 12 noon while the incident occurred at 11 AM, and that Puran PW3 was a chance witness. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions. It held that enmity is a double-edged sword and related witnesses are not expected to spare real culprits and rope in innocent persons merely because of enmity; their testimony cannot be rejected on that ground alone, but requires deeper scrutiny. The Court found that the presence of PW1, PW2, PW4, and PW7 was established by consistent evidence; PW1 had followed the deceased, and the other three came out of the Panchayat Bhawan at 11 AM and heard cries, rushing to the spot about 300 feet away. Minor contradictions related only to details of assault by acquitted co-accused. PW3's presence in his cultivated field near the place of occurrence was natural. The ocular testimony of these eyewitnesses was corroborated by the medical evidence, as the injuries tallied with the weapons used. Consequently, the Court found no reason to differ from the concurrent view of the two courts below. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC were affirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Trial - Appreciation of Evidence - Interested Witnesses - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Enmity and relationship of prosecution witnesses with deceased did not render their testimony unreliable; courts must make deeper scrutiny - Held that enmity is a double edged sword and related witnesses are not expected to falsely implicate innocent persons; concurrent findings of guilt based on reliable evidence not interfered with (Paras 9-11). B) Criminal Trial - Eyewitness Testimony - Presence of Witnesses - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Appellants challenged presence of brother (PW1) and Panchayat meeting witnesses (PW2, PW4, PW7), but evidence showed PW1 followed deceased, and other witnesses came out of Panchayat Bhawan at 11 AM hearing cries; consistent testimony and minor contradictions only regarding acquitted accused - Held that presence of eyewitnesses was established and testimony credible (Paras 10-11). C) Criminal Trial - Chance Witness - Independent Witness - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - PW3, a cultivator in nearby field, heard cries and witnessed assault; his presence was natural due to standing crop - Held that evidence of independent chance witness corroborated by medical evidence is reliable (Para 12). D) Criminal Trial - Medical Evidence - Corroboration - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Autopsy revealed incised wounds, stab wounds, and blunt injuries consistent with Farsa and Ballam; doctor opined injuries 1 and 2 sufficient to cause death - Held that ocular version of eyewitnesses was corroborated by medical evidence, supporting conviction under Section 302; appeal dismissed (Paras 6-7, 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court and Trial Court erred in relying on the testimony of related and interested witnesses, and a chance witness, to convict the appellants under Section 302 IPC; whether the concurrent findings of guilt were perverse or based on unreliable evidence
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed. The conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court were upheld.
Law Points
- Enmity between parties does not discredit prosecution witnesses
- related witnesses' testimony is not to be rejected solely on ground of relationship
- court must scrutinize evidence with deeper care in such cases
- medical evidence corroborating ocular version strengthens prosecution case
- concurrent findings of fact not interfered unless perverse
