2003 (7) TMI 695 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether judgment of the Karnataka High Court whereby conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ) read with Section 34 thereof and the sentence for imprisonment for life was confirmed is sans merit?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
2. Conviction under Section 323 IPC.
3. Plea of alibi by accused-appellants.
4. Credibility of witness testimony.
5. Variance between medical and ocular evidence.
6. Applicability of Section 34 IPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC:
The appellants were convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of Maheswari. The trial court and the High Court confirmed the conviction based on the evidence provided by PW1, who witnessed the crime. The courts found that the evidence was credible and cogent, despite some doubts about PW2's testimony. The courts held that the appellants acted in furtherance of a common intention to murder the deceased, thus justifying the application of Section 34 IPC.

2. Conviction under Section 323 IPC:
Accused-appellants Ayyar Thavar and Porutchyelvan were also convicted under Section 323 IPC for causing hurt to PW1. The trial court and the High Court upheld this conviction and the sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment. The courts found sufficient evidence to support the conviction, as PW1 testified about the physical assault he endured while trying to protect his sister.

3. Plea of alibi by accused-appellants:
Accused-appellants Krishnan and Ganesan claimed they were not present at the crime scene. Krishnan argued he was elsewhere, supported by a warning notice, while Ganesan claimed he was at work, substantiated by documents and a witness (DW1). Both the trial court and the High Court rejected these alibis, finding the evidence unconvincing and fabricated. The courts concluded that the alibis did not establish their absence from the crime scene, and thus, the plea was dismissed.

4. Credibility of witness testimony:
The courts placed significant reliance on the testimony of PW1, who was an eyewitness to the crime. Despite the defense's argument that PW1's statement was calculated and had many loose ends, the courts found his testimony credible and trustworthy. The courts noted that the first information report was lodged immediately after the incident, which reduced the possibility of false implication. The defense's alternative theory that PW1 and his family killed the deceased was deemed hollow and unsupported by any material evidence.

5. Variance between medical and ocular evidence:
The defense argued that the medical evidence did not align with the ocular evidence provided by PW1. The courts, however, held that minor variances between medical and ocular evidence do not undermine the credibility of the eyewitness account. The courts emphasized that the ocular evidence was consistent, credible, and trustworthy, and any minor discrepancies with medical evidence were not significant enough to cast doubt on the prosecution's case.

6. Applicability of Section 34 IPC:
The courts discussed the applicability of Section 34 IPC, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention. The courts found that the appellants shared a common intention to murder the deceased, as evidenced by their coordinated actions during the crime. The courts cited the case of Charan Singh v. State of Punjab, where similar circumstances justified the application of Section 34 IPC. The courts concluded that the appellants were jointly liable for the murder, even if their individual acts differed in nature.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, with the Supreme Court affirming the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court and the High Court. The evidence, particularly the testimony of PW1, was found credible and sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The pleas of alibi and discrepancies between medical and ocular evidence were rejected, and the applicability of Section 34 IPC was upheld, confirming the joint liability of the appellants for the murder of Maheswari.