2006 (8) TMI 523 - SC - Indian Laws

Commission of the offence of causing intentional death to one Baijnath Singh and disappearance of his dead body. Held that - In the instant case, however, some of the witnesses examined by the prosecution are independent. The evidence of all the witnesses are more or less consistent. Nothing has been pointed out to discredit their testimonies. The learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court, therefore, cannot be said to have committed any mistake in relying upon the testimonies of the said witnesses. A contention was raised that autopsy surgeon opined that the death must have taken place 10 days prior to the post mortem examination and in that view of the matter the prosecution case should be disbelieved. The murder allegedly took place on a boat. The dead body was thrown in the water. It remained under water for more than five days. Rigor mortis was absent and the body was fully decomposed. The soft tissues of some of the parts of the body had been eaten away by fish.Medical science has not achieved such perfection so as to enable a medical practitioner to categorically state in regard to the exact time of death. In a case of this nature, it was difficult to pinpoint the exact time of death. The autopsy surgeon told about the approximate time lag between the date of post mortem examination and the likely date of death. He did not explain the basis for arriving at his opinion. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Identification of the deceased's body.
2. Non-examination of independent witnesses.
3. Criminal background of the deceased.
4. Consistency of prosecution witnesses' depositions.
5. Individual overt acts of the appellants.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Identification of the deceased's body:
The appellants argued that the dead body could not be identified due to its decomposed state, as indicated by the post-mortem report. However, the prosecution presented evidence from witnesses who identified the body based on specific features such as a patch of grey hair, a one paisa coin tied to the waist, and a thick mustache. The medical evidence confirmed that the body had identifiable features despite decomposition. The court emphasized that the discovery of the dead body is a rule of caution and not of law, and strong circumstantial evidence can suffice for a conviction even without the corpus delicti.

2. Non-examination of independent witnesses:
The appellants contended that the prosecution's failure to examine independent witnesses resulted in grave prejudice. The court acknowledged that while the prosecution should ideally examine all witnesses mentioned in the chargesheet, this is not an inflexible rule. The quality of evidence is more critical than the quantity. The prosecution justified the non-examination of certain witnesses by stating they were inimically disposed towards the informant. The court found this explanation satisfactory and upheld the conviction based on the consistent and reliable testimonies of the examined witnesses.

3. Criminal background of the deceased:
The appellants argued that the deceased's criminal background meant he could have been killed by others, and they were implicated due to enmity. The court dismissed this argument, noting that the prosecution had provided sufficient motive for the crime, related to ongoing disputes over land and crops. The consistent and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses further supported the conviction.

4. Consistency of prosecution witnesses' depositions:
The appellants claimed inconsistencies in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. The court, however, found the witnesses' statements to be consistent and corroborative. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged promptly, and the informant's account was detailed and credible. The testimonies of the eye-witnesses were found reliable, and their identification of the dead body was deemed accurate.

5. Individual overt acts of the appellants:
The appellants argued that the trial court and the High Court failed to consider the individual overt acts of each appellant. The court noted that the prosecution witnesses provided a comprehensive account of the incident, detailing the collective assault on the deceased by the appellants. Given the nature of the crime, which involved a group attack on a boat, it was impractical to pinpoint the exact actions of each appellant. The court held that Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, was applicable in this case.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the convictions and sentences, finding no merit in the appellants' arguments. The evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies and medical reports, was deemed sufficient to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the judgments of the trial court and the High Court.