2002 (7) TMI 804 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and sentencing of appellants under Section 302 IPC.
2. Reliability of eyewitness testimonies.
3. Recovery and admissibility of ballistic evidence.
4. Awarding of compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction and Sentencing of Appellants under Section 302 IPC:
The appellants were convicted by the Sessions Judge for the murder of Virsa Singh and Kulwant Singh, receiving death sentences under Section 302 IPC. The High Court concurred with the conviction but reduced the sentence to life imprisonment, deeming the case not among the "rarest of the rare." The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and life imprisonment sentences, agreeing with the lower courts' findings and rejecting the appellants' challenge to their conviction and sentence.

2. Reliability of Eyewitness Testimonies:
The appellants contended the improbability of eyewitnesses PWs.3 and 4 witnessing the incident from their stated positions. PW-3, the son of the deceased, and PW-4, a relative, were claimed to be unlikely present at the scene. The Supreme Court found the testimonies credible, noting PW-3's presence at the time of dinner and PW-4's plausible reason for visiting. The Court dismissed the argument that their hiding behind a parapet wall negated their ability to witness the incident.

3. Recovery and Admissibility of Ballistic Evidence:
The appellants argued the lack of documentation in the recovery Mahazar for bullet casings found at the crime scene. The Supreme Court held that the Investigating Officer's testimony, which was unchallenged during cross-examination, sufficiently established the recovery and sealing of the bullet casings. The ballistic expert confirmed the casings matched the weapons recovered from the appellants, supporting the prosecution's case.

4. Awarding of Compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.:
The High Court awarded Rs. 4 lakhs as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C., which the appellants challenged, citing lack of notice and opportunity to contest the amount. The Supreme Court found no prejudice from the procedural technicalities and upheld the High Court's jurisdiction to award compensation. However, it reduced the compensation from Rs. 2 lakhs per appellant to Rs. 1 lakh each, considering the appellants' financial capacity inferred from their assets.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the convictions and life sentences of the appellants, affirmed the credibility of eyewitness testimonies, validated the ballistic evidence, and modified the compensation amount to Rs. 1 lakh per appellant. The appeal regarding conviction and sentence was dismissed, while the challenge to the compensation was accepted in part.