2013 (7) TMI 1224 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-recovery of weapons and motorcycle
2. Non-examination of independent eyewitnesses
3. Plea of alibi by the appellant
4. Alleged discrepancies in FIR registration and dispatch
5. Applicability of Section 34 IPC

Summary:

Non-recovery of weapons and motorcycle:
The appellants contended that the non-recovery of the weapons and the motorcycle disproves the prosecution's case. The Court noted that the motorcycle was stealthily removed by the accused after the crime, and the evidence of P.W. 8 confirmed the sale of the vehicle to the deceased. The non-production of the vehicle was not considered a fault of the prosecution.

Non-examination of independent eyewitnesses:
The appellants argued that the non-examination of independent eyewitnesses whose statements were recorded u/s 161 of CrPC belies the prosecution's case. The Court held that the non-examination was due to the witnesses' fear of the accused, who were notorious criminals. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 was found sufficient and credible.

Plea of alibi by the appellant:
The appellant in Crl. A. No. 1020 of 2004 claimed he was attending a wedding at the time of the crime. The Court found the evidence of D.W. 1 insufficient and unreliable. The plea of alibi was rejected as the eyewitnesses specifically mentioned the appellant's presence and involvement in the crime.

Alleged discrepancies in FIR registration and dispatch:
The appellants contended that there were serious lacunae in the registration and dispatch of the FIR. The Court noted that the FIR was registered promptly and dispatched the next day. The medical evidence corroborated the timing of the incident. The Court found no reason to doubt the FIR's registration.

Applicability of Section 34 IPC:
The appellants argued that Section 34 IPC was not applicable as there was no specific overt act by the appellant in Crl. A. No. 1021 of 2004. The Court held that the evidence showed all accused acted with common intention. The invocation of Section 34 IPC was justified.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, and the appellants' bail bonds were canceled. They were ordered to be taken into custody to serve the remaining part of their sentence.