2023 (3) TMI 1436 - SC - Indian Laws

Murder - reliance placed on the evidence of the so called eyewitnesses or not - Appreciation of oral evidence - whether High Court committed a serious error in dismissing the appeal filed by the two Appellants herein against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court? - Principles of Res Gestae - Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. Appreciation of oral evidence - HELD THAT - The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. There is no fixed or straight-jacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence - The oral evidence of all the three eyewitnesses is consistent and there is no good reason to disbelieve the ocular version as narrated by the three eyewitnesses. The Trial Court as well as the High Court looked into the oral evidence of all the three eyewitnesses referred to above closely and have recorded a concurrent finding that they are reliable witnesses. In the exercise of the power Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India this Court normally would not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact except in very special circumstances or in the case of a gross error committed by the courts below. Only where the High Court ignores or overlooks crying circumstances and proven facts or violates and misapplies well established principles of criminal jurisprudence or refuses to give benefit of doubt to the Accused persons etc. would this Court step in to correct the legally erroneous decisions - this Court while considering the evidence on record took note of a suggestion which was put to one of the witnesses and considering the reply given by the witness to the suggestion put by the Accused arrived at the conclusion that the presence of the Accused was admitted. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the initial burden to establish the case against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt rests on the prosecution. It is also an elementary principle of law that the prosecution has to prove its case on its own legs and cannot derive advantage or benefit from the weakness of the defence - It is true that a suggestion has no evidentiary value but this proposition of law would not hold good at all times and in a given case during the course of cross-examination the defence counsel may put such a suggestion the answer to which may directly go against the Accused and this is exactly what has happened in the present case. The suggestions made to the witness by the defence counsel and the reply to such suggestions would definitely form part of the evidence and can be relied upon by the Court along with other evidence on record to determine the guilt of the Accused. Take for instance in case of a charge of rape Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code the statement of the Accused contained plain denial and a plea of false implication a subsequent suggestion by the defence lawyer to the prosecutrix about consent on her part would not by itself amount to admission of guilt on behalf of the Accused - if a specific question is put to a witness by way of a suggestion indicative of exercise of right of private defence then the Court would well be justified in taking into consideration such suggestion and if the presence of the Accused is established the same would definitely be admissible in evidence. Principles of Res Gestae - HELD THAT - The Rule embodied in Section 6 is usually known as the Rule of res gestae. What it means is that a fact which though not in issue is so connected with the fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction becomes relevant by itself. To form particular statement as part of the same transaction utterances must be simultaneous with the incident or substantial contemporaneous that is made either during or immediately before or after its occurrence - Sections 6 and 7 of the Act 1872 in the facts and circumstances of the case in so far as the admissibility of a statement of the PW 3 Nasir Rajjak Khan coming to know about incident immediately from the PW 1 Asgar Shaikh that Abbas Baig had been seriously assaulted and that Asgar Shaikh had also suffered injuries and admitted by the PW 1 Asgar Shaikh in his evidence would be attracted with all its rigour. Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that the death of the deceased occurred due to culpable homicide and not due to accident or suicide - It is proposed to consider whether the incident comes within any of the exceptions indicated in Section 300 of the Code - the sine qua non for the application of an Exception to Section 300 always is that it is a case of murder but the Accused claims the benefit of the Exception to bring it out of that Section and to make it a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is assumed that this would be a case of murder and it is for the Accused to show the applicability of the Exception - On a plain reading of Exception 4 it appears that the help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation (b) in a sudden fight (c) without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is convincing that no case is made out by the Appellants to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the High Court's dismissal of the appeal against the conviction.
2. Reliability of the eyewitnesses' testimonies.
3. Validity of the discovery of weapons under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
4. Applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.

Summary:

Legitimacy of the High Court's Dismissal:
The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's decision to dismiss the appeal against the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The High Court had affirmed the trial court's judgment, which found the appellants guilty of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment along with a fine.

Reliability of the Eyewitnesses' Testimonies:
The prosecution's case was primarily based on the testimonies of three eyewitnesses: PW 1 Asgar Shaikh, PW 2 Firoz Shaikh, and PW 3 Nasir Khan. The Supreme Court noted that the testimonies of these witnesses were consistent and credible. The presence of PW 1 at the scene was confirmed despite the defense's argument that his injury was not medically documented. The defense's cross-examination inadvertently supported the prosecution's case by confirming the presence of PW 1 at the crime scene.

Validity of the Discovery of Weapons:
The defense argued that the discovery of weapons under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was unreliable due to the panch witnesses not supporting the panchnama. However, the Supreme Court found that the discovery of weapons and the conduct of the accused were relevant facts under Section 8 of the Act, supporting the prosecution's case.

Applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC:
The appellants argued that the case should fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which would reduce the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting the severity and number of injuries inflicted on the deceased with dangerous weapons like a sickle and sword. The court held that the appellants took undue advantage and acted in a cruel manner, thus not qualifying for the exception.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, affirming the conviction and life sentence of the appellants. The appellants were ordered to surrender to the trial court to serve out their sentences. The appeal was dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of.