1995 (11) TMI 483 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and sentencing under Sections 302, 148, and 149 IPC.
2. Delay in examining eye witnesses.
3. Credibility of eye witnesses.
4. Post-mortem report discrepancies.
5. Non-examination of certain witnesses.
6. Alleged defective investigation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction and Sentencing under Sections 302, 148, and 149 IPC:
The appeals were directed against the judgment dated March 24, 1993, by the High Court at Allahabad, which upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants under Section 302 read with Sections 148 and 149 IPC for causing the death of Amar Pal on October 11, 1978. The prosecution established that the appellants attacked the deceased with knives, inflicting sixteen injuries resulting in his death on the spot.

2. Delay in Examining Eye Witnesses:
The defense argued that the eye witnesses, PW. 2 Ram Saran and PW. 3 Attar Singh, were examined almost after three weeks, and PW. 6 Dr. Rajveer Singh was examined after about 56 days. This delay was not explained by the prosecution, raising suspicion that the witnesses might have consulted others and fabricated their testimonies. The court acknowledged the delay but emphasized that convincing and reliable evidence should not be discarded solely due to delayed examination.

3. Credibility of Eye Witnesses:
The defense contended that PW. 2 and PW. 3 were related to the deceased's family, thus their testimonies should be scrutinized with caution. They also highlighted inconsistencies in their statements. The prosecution argued that the witnesses were not close relations and had no motive to falsely implicate the appellants. The court found the testimonies of PW. 2, PW. 3, and PW. 6 credible and consistent, establishing the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt.

4. Post-Mortem Report Discrepancies:
The defense pointed out that the post-mortem report noted two lacerated wounds, which the prosecution explained as the deceased having dashed against a wall. This fact was not initially stated by PW. 2 but was later mentioned in his deposition. The court found this explanation plausible and supported by the presence of blood marks on the wall, as noted by the Investigating Officer.

5. Non-Examination of Certain Witnesses:
The defense argued that the non-examination of Ranbir, mentioned in the FIR as an eye witness, weakened the prosecution's case. The prosecution maintained that the quality of evidence, not the number of witnesses, mattered. The court agreed, stating that the non-examination of Ranbir did not affect the case's credibility.

6. Alleged Defective Investigation:
The defense highlighted several investigative lapses, including the omission of crime number in the inquest report and the delayed examination of witnesses. The prosecution admitted these lapses but argued that they did not undermine the reliable evidence presented. The court cited a precedent, indicating that defective investigation should not lead to acquittal if the case is otherwise conclusively established. The court found the prosecution's evidence credible and dismissed the appeals, upholding the convictions and sentences.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the convictions and sentences under Sections 302, 148, and 149 IPC. Despite acknowledging investigative lapses and delayed examination of witnesses, the court found the prosecution's evidence credible and reliable, establishing the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt.