2006 (9) TMI 580 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Credibility of the sole eyewitness.
2. Corroboration of the eyewitness testimony.
3. Admissibility of hearsay evidence.
4. Compliance with Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. Appropriateness of the death penalty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Credibility of the Sole Eyewitness:
The sole eyewitness in this case is Savitri Devi, P.W.15, the mother of the deceased. The appellant's counsel argued that P.W.15, being an interested witness, should not be relied upon without corroboration. However, the court rejected this contention, stating that close relatives are natural witnesses and are not necessarily biased. The court cited precedents from the Apex Court, emphasizing that close relatives are often the last to falsely implicate someone and that their testimony should not be dismissed solely on the basis of their relationship to the victim.

2. Corroboration of the Eyewitness Testimony:
The court noted that the testimony of P.W.15 was corroborated by other witnesses who arrived at the scene shortly after the incident and were informed by P.W.15 about the occurrence and the identity of the assailant. Witnesses P.Ws. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, and 11, who are family members and neighbors, confirmed that they heard the informant's cries and saw the deceased lying dead with injuries. Additionally, P.W.4, a brother of the deceased, witnessed the accused fleeing the scene with blood-stained hands and shirt, further corroborating P.W.15's account.

3. Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence:
The appellant's counsel argued that the evidence provided by the witnesses was hearsay and thus inadmissible under Section 60 of the Evidence Act. The court clarified that hearsay evidence is inadmissible only when it aims to establish the truth of the statement. It is admissible when it seeks to establish the fact that the statement was made. The court cited the Privy Council's decision in Subramaniam v. Public Prosecutor to support this distinction. The statements made by the witnesses were considered admissible for establishing the conduct of the informant and the factum of the statements made immediately after the occurrence.

4. Compliance with Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The court found that the trial court did not comply with the mandatory provision of Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires the court to adjourn the matter after recording the conviction and allow both parties to present material on the question of sentence. The trial court had delivered the sentence on the same day as the conviction, which the court deemed a serious error. The court referred to the Apex Court's decision in Allauddin and Ors. v. State of Bihar, which mandates that the trial courts should give the accused an opportunity to present material on the sentence before pronouncing it.

5. Appropriateness of the Death Penalty:
The court agreed with the appellant's counsel that the case did not fall within the "rarest of rare cases" as defined by the Apex Court. The court noted that the lower court had not effectively provided the accused with an opportunity to be heard on the question of the sentence and had disregarded the principles laid down by the Apex Court regarding the imposition of the death penalty. Consequently, the court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but set aside the death sentence due to non-compliance with Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case not meeting the criteria for the "rarest of rare cases." The death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, and the criminal appeal was dismissed with this modification.