1953 (5) TMI 34 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Credibility of eyewitness testimony.
3. Enhancement of the sentence from transportation for life to the death penalty.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

The appellants were convicted by the Sessions Judge under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for the double murder of Rattan Singh and Bawa Singh. The High Court sustained the convictions of the four appellants and enhanced their sentences to death. The prosecution's case was that all seven accused belonged to the same village and faction, and the murders were motivated by past enmity and suspicions of police informancy. The eyewitnesses, Mst. Punnan (P.W. 2) and Mst. Charni (P.W. 11), testified that all seven accused assaulted the victims. The medical evidence corroborated the presence of multiple injuries on the victims, inflicted by both blunt and sharp-edged weapons. However, the High Court's finding that "the other three accused may or may not have taken part in the affair" created uncertainty about the presence of at least five persons, which is a prerequisite for invoking Section 149 IPC. The Supreme Court noted that the conviction under Section 149 IPC requires certainty about the presence of five persons sharing the common object, which was not established beyond doubt in this case.

2. Credibility of Eyewitness Testimony:

The Sessions Judge believed the two eyewitnesses and convicted all seven accused. The High Court, however, required corroboration for the eyewitnesses' testimony due to their close relationship with the deceased and the fact that the fate of seven men depended on their testimony. The Supreme Court disagreed with this requirement, stating that there is no general rule of prudence that requires corroboration of testimony solely because the witnesses are women or closely related to the deceased. The Court emphasized that each case must be judged on its own facts and that the testimony of close relatives can often be a guarantee of truth. The Supreme Court found the eyewitnesses' testimony credible, noting their consistency and the promptness of the first information report (FIR) made by Mst. Punnan. The blood-stained clothes found on the appellants provided strong corroboration of their involvement.

3. Enhancement of the Sentence from Transportation for Life to the Death Penalty:

The High Court enhanced the sentences of the four appellants from transportation for life to the death penalty without providing sufficient reasons. The Supreme Court held that the discretion to award the death penalty lies with the trial judge, and an appellate court should not interfere unless the discretion has been improperly exercised. The Supreme Court noted that the trial judge had reasons to award the lesser penalty, considering the uncertainty about who inflicted the fatal blows and the vicarious nature of the appellants' responsibility. The High Court's summary dismissal of the appeals and enhancement of the sentences without detailed reasoning was deemed improper. The Supreme Court reduced the sentences of the appellants to transportation for life, emphasizing that the power to enhance a sentence to death should be exercised only for the strongest possible reasons.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the convictions of the four appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC but reduced their sentences from death to transportation for life. The Court emphasized the need for certainty in the application of Section 149 IPC, the credibility of eyewitness testimony, and the proper exercise of judicial discretion in sentencing. The appeal was dismissed except for the reduction in the sentence.