Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1978 (2) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1978 (2) TMI 211 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and sentencing of the appellants.
2. Dispute over the recovery of live versus empty cartridges.
3. Examination of the Sessions Judge as a witness.
4. Right to rebut evidence under Section 540 Cr.P.C.
5. Credibility of prosecution witnesses.
6. Admissibility of documentary evidence.

Issue-Wise Analysis:

1. Conviction and Sentencing of the Appellants:
The appellants were convicted under various sections of the IPC, including sections 302/149, 324/149, 394, 148, and 147, and sentenced to imprisonment ranging from one year to life. The High Court upheld the convictions and sentences, affirming the findings of the Sessions Judge.

2. Dispute Over the Recovery of Live Versus Empty Cartridges:
The appellants challenged the recovery of four live cartridges at the scene, arguing that they were empty. This issue was central to the defense, as it could suggest the deceased fired shots, altering the case's complexion. The High Court examined the evidence, including the inquest report and site plan, and concluded that the cartridges were live, not empty. This finding was supported by documentary evidence and the consistent testimony of the Investigating Officer.

3. Examination of the Sessions Judge as a Witness:
The High Court erred by examining the Sessions Judge as a witness, which is generally discouraged to maintain judicial impartiality. The Court cited precedents emphasizing that judges should not be witnesses in cases they decide, as it could undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

4. Right to Rebut Evidence Under Section 540 Cr.P.C.:
The appellants argued that they were not given a fair opportunity to rebut the evidence of witnesses examined by the High Court under Section 540 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the right to rebut evidence is essential for a just decision and is implicit under Section 540. The Court criticized the High Court for not allowing the appellants to examine additional witnesses to rebut the new evidence.

5. Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses:
The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of three main eyewitnesses (P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.3). Both the Sessions Judge and the High Court found their testimonies credible and reliable. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the evidence, also found no reason to doubt the witnesses' credibility, noting that their accounts were consistent and corroborated by other evidence.

6. Admissibility of Documentary Evidence:
The Supreme Court examined various documents, including the inquest report (Ex. Ka-10) and the site plan (Ex. Ka-18), which supported the prosecution's case. The Court clarified that while statements made by witnesses to the police during investigation are inadmissible under Section 162 Cr.P.C., the observations made by the Investigating Officer in official documents are admissible as they constitute primary evidence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the convictions and sentences. The Court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellants' arguments regarding the recovery of cartridges and the right to rebut evidence were not sufficient to overturn the convictions. The judgment emphasized the importance of fair trial principles and the proper exercise of judicial discretion under Section 540 Cr.P.C.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates