Case Note & Summary
The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed by special leave against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court which acquitted four accused respondents in a murder case, reversing the conviction by the Sessions Judge, Hardoi. The deceased, Sikander Khan, was murdered on October 16, 1967, and the prosecution alleged that respondents Iftikhar Khan and Anwar Khan (real brothers) along with associates Ishitiaq Khan and Syeed Khan, came armed with pistols and lathis to the deceased's shop and shot him dead. The trial court convicted respondents 1 and 2 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to death, and respondents 3 and 4 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The High Court acquitted all accused, holding that the two eyewitnesses, PWs 1 and 2, being brothers of the deceased, were partisan witnesses and their testimony could not be relied upon. It also did not properly consider the plea of alibi of the first respondent. The Supreme Court found the High Court's approach erroneous, holding that merely because witnesses are related to the deceased does not render their evidence inadmissible or untrustworthy; such evidence requires careful scrutiny but cannot be rejected solely on the ground of relationship. The Court also examined the scope of Section 34 IPC, holding that common intention can be inferred from conduct and circumstances, and that no overt act is necessary for each accused if they shared the common intention to commit the crime. It found that the lathi-armed accused had accompanied the shooters with knowledge of the pistols and ran away together, indicating common intention to murder. On the prosecution's duty to examine witnesses, the Court noted that it is ordinarily the duty to examine all material witnesses, but in this case the three witnesses had filed affidavits in the committing court denying seeing the incident, so no purpose would have been served by examining them. The Court also considered the delay of more than four years since the death sentence and the intervening acquittal by the High Court, and held that interests of justice would be served by sentencing the accused to imprisonment for life instead of death. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's acquittal, and restored the convictions, but modified the death sentences to life imprisonment for all surviving accused. The appeal against respondent 2 was dismissed as infructuous due to his death during pendency.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal - Scope of Supreme Court's Power Under Article 136 of Constitution of India, 1950 - In appeals against acquittal by special leave, Supreme Court has power to interfere with findings of fact, no distinction between judgments of acquittal and conviction, but will not ordinarily interfere unless High Court acted perversely or improperly, grounds plainly untenable, or grave miscarriage of justice; in reference under Section 374 CrPC, High Court must independently consider material but if reversal based on fallacious grounds, Supreme Court may interfere - Held that High Court's approach to eyewitness evidence was erroneous and grounds untenable (Paras 1-16). B) Evidence - Interested Witnesses - Can brothers of deceased be disbelieved solely due to relationship? - High Court rejected testimony of PWs 1 and 2 as partisan without considering discrepancies or genuineness; such approach is erroneous; relationship does not ipso facto render testimony false - Held that evidence of interested witnesses must be scrutinized carefully but cannot be rejected solely on ground of relationship (Paras 1-16). C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 34 - Common Intention - Need not involve overt act by each accused; physical presence at scene normally necessary but pre-arranged plan inferred from conduct; lathi-armed accused who accompanied shooters with common intention liable under Section 302 read with Section 34 - Held that respondents 3 and 4 with lathis shared common intention to murder as they came in body, knew associates had pistols, and ran away together (Paras 1-16). D) Criminal Procedure - Prosecution Duty to Examine Witnesses - Material witnesses essential to unfolding narrative should ordinarily be examined, but not necessary if witnesses filed affidavits denying seeing incident - Held that no purpose served by examining three persons who filed false affidavits due to fear; prosecution not at fault (Paras 1-16). E) Sentencing - Murder - Death Sentence vs Life Imprisonment - Where more than four years elapsed since death sentence and High Court acquitted, interests of justice warrant life imprisonment - Held that accused sentenced to imprisonment for life instead of death (Paras 1-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in reversing conviction by rejecting testimony of eyewitnesses as interested; applicability of Section 34 IPC to accused with lathis; propriety of death sentence; scope of Supreme Court's power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; convictions and sentences restored as modified: respondents 1 and 3 and 4 convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life; death sentence commuted to life imprisonment due to delay and intervening acquittal; appeal against respondent 2 dismissed as infructuous.
Law Points
- Supreme Court can interfere with findings of fact in appeals against acquittal under Article 136
- High Court cannot reject eyewitness testimony solely on ground of relation to deceased
- section 34 IPC requires common intention inferred from conduct
- prosecution duty to examine material witnesses but not when witnesses filed affidavits denying incident
- death sentence may be commuted to life imprisonment due to delay and acquittal
