1975 (9) TMI 195 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Conviction under Section 302/149 IPC.
2. Conviction under Section 148 IPC.
3. Right of private defense.
4. Reliability of eye-witnesses.
5. Medical evidence and weapon correlation.
6. Defense of alibi.
7. Motive and absconding.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 302/149 IPC:
The First Temporary Sessions Judge, Meerut, convicted six individuals for rioting and committing murder under Section 302/149 IPC. The High Court acquitted three of the accused and altered the conviction of the remaining three from Section 302/149 to Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, commuting their death sentences to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing that the evidence against the appellants was concurrently believed by the lower courts and did not show any manifest error or violation of fundamental rules of procedure.

2. Conviction under Section 148 IPC:
The High Court set aside the conviction of Kartarey, Sitaram, and Baljeet under Section 148 IPC, which pertains to rioting with a deadly weapon. The Supreme Court did not find any reason to interfere with this part of the High Court's judgment.

3. Right of Private Defense:
The appellants contended that the injuries to the deceased were caused in the exercise of their right of private defense. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the defense story was "extremely unnatural and improbable." The Court found no evidence to support the claim that the deceased attempted to rape Mst. Kaila, and instead found that the deceased was forcibly taken into the courtyard and assaulted.

4. Reliability of Eye-witnesses:
The Court found the testimony of the eye-witnesses credible and consistent. The eye-witnesses had seen the accused assaulting the deceased and their account was corroborated by the presence of blood in the courtyard and the kotha. The Court dismissed the defense's argument that the absence of dragging marks on the deceased's body undermined the prosecution's case.

5. Medical Evidence and Weapon Correlation:
The Court noted that the medical evidence showed 16 stab wounds on the deceased, which were inflicted by three different weapons. The prosecution failed to show the weapon (chhura) to the medical witness, but the Court found that the dimensions of the wounds indicated they were caused by three different weapons, corroborating the eye-witness accounts.

6. Defense of Alibi:
The appellants Sita Ram and Baljeet pleaded alibi. The Supreme Court found the defense evidence unconvincing and flimsy. The High Court had not considered this evidence, but the Supreme Court examined it and found that the appellants failed to establish their alibi. The Court noted that Sita Ram intentionally remained absent from his village for four days after the occurrence and Baljeet was found hiding in a chhappar in the village.

7. Motive and Absconding:
The Court found that Baljeet had a conceivable motive for the crime, as his father-in-law had been fined by the deceased's father. The Court also rejected the argument that Baljeet did not abscond, noting that he was found hiding to evade the process of law. The Court concluded that there was no reason to treat Baljeet's case differently from that of Sita Ram.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and maintained the convictions of the appellants, finding no good reason to disturb the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court upheld the sentences and rejected the contentions regarding the right of private defense, reliability of eye-witnesses, medical evidence, and defense of alibi.