2012 (7) TMI 1143 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Sections 302, 201, 379, 411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Acquittal under Section 379 IPC.
3. Legality and correctness of the High Court's judgment.
4. Reliability of prosecution witnesses.
5. Application of circumstantial evidence.
6. Delay in recording witness statements.
7. Identification of accused.
8. Application of Section 34 IPC.

Summary:

1. Conviction under Sections 302, 201, 379, 411 read with Section 34 IPC:
Eight accused were charged with offences u/s 302, 201, 379, 411 read with Section 34 IPC. The Trial Court found all accused guilty and sentenced them to death for the offence u/s 302 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for seven years u/s 201 IPC, and three years for the offence u/s 379 IPC. The High Court acquitted them of the offence u/s 379 IPC but sustained their conviction u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment.

2. Acquittal under Section 379 IPC:
The High Court acquitted all accused of the offence u/s 379 read with Section 34 IPC while sustaining their conviction u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC and maintained the sentence under Section 201 IPC.

3. Legality and correctness of the High Court's judgment:
The legality and correctness of the High Court's judgment were challenged by the accused before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided to deal with all appeals collectively as they arose from a common judgment and were based on common questions of facts and law.

4. Reliability of prosecution witnesses:
The defense contended that crucial witnesses were unreliable and tutored. However, the prosecution argued that the witnesses were reliable and trustworthy, and their testimonies were corroborated by other evidence. The Supreme Court found the prosecution witnesses credible and their statements consistent with the case's facts.

5. Application of circumstantial evidence:
The defense argued that the case was based on circumstantial evidence and did not establish a complete chain of events. The prosecution countered that there were eye-witnesses to different events, making it not purely a circumstantial evidence case. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution had established the complete chain of events, proving the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

6. Delay in recording witness statements:
The defense highlighted the delay in recording witness statements, suggesting that the witnesses were tutored. The Supreme Court held that the delay was explained and did not affect the credibility of the witnesses. The Court noted that the delay was due to the accused absconding and the Investigating Officer's efforts to arrest them.

7. Identification of accused:
The defense argued that accused Shyamal Ghosh was not identified in the test identification parade and was not named by some witnesses. The Supreme Court noted that although Shyamal Ghosh was not named by some witnesses, he was identified in court by multiple witnesses, which was sufficient for his conviction.

8. Application of Section 34 IPC:
The defense contended that the prosecution failed to prove common intention and participation of all accused, making Section 34 IPC inapplicable. The Supreme Court found that the ingredients of Section 34 IPC were satisfied as the accused had a common intention and participated in the crime. The Court upheld the application of Section 34 IPC and the conviction of the accused.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the High Court's judgment on merits or the quantum of sentence. The accused were held guilty u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.