2013 (5) TMI 955 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction u/s 302 IPC.
2. Credibility of prosecution witnesses.
3. Tainted investigation by the Investigating Officer.
4. Non-payment of dues as motive.
5. Defense arguments and cross-examination.
6. Independent witness testimony.
7. Judicial observations on investigation standards.

Summary:

1. Conviction u/s 302 IPC:
The appellant was convicted u/s 302 IPC by the Trial Court and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. The High Court affirmed this judgment.

2. Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses:
Maya Devi (PW.3) and Birma (PW.4) testified that they witnessed the appellant dragging the deceased with a rope around her neck. Their presence at the scene was deemed credible despite defense claims about land cultivation practices.

3. Tainted Investigation by the Investigating Officer:
The initial investigation by SI Rajesh Kumar was found to be biased and in favor of the appellant. The High Court noted several lapses, including the failure to document dragging marks and the lack of forensic evidence collection. The investigation was later taken over by another officer who conducted it properly.

4. Non-payment of Dues as Motive:
The prosecution established that the appellant had a dispute with the deceased over Rs. 47,000/- for the sale of a buffalo. This was corroborated by multiple witnesses, including Omkar Singh (PW.8). The defense did not effectively challenge this motive.

5. Defense Arguments and Cross-examination:
The defense argued that the deceased was a woman of easy virtue and that the investigation was delayed and tainted. However, the defense failed to cross-examine key witnesses effectively or provide substantial evidence to support their claims.

6. Independent Witness Testimony:
Omkar Singh (PW.8) testified that the appellant had threatened to kill the deceased days before the incident. His testimony was considered credible and independent, further supporting the prosecution's case.

7. Judicial Observations on Investigation Standards:
The Court emphasized the need for ethical and unbiased investigations, highlighting that a tainted investigation undermines justice. The Court cited previous judgments to stress that lapses in investigation should not necessarily lead to acquittal unless they cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld. The Court expressed its anguish over the lack of action against the biased Investigating Officer and directed the Chief Secretary of Haryana to examine the case and proceed according to law.