2000 (4) TMI 857 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction u/s 302 and 120B I.P.C.
2. Evidence and Circumstantial Proof.
3. Recovery of Weapons.
4. Credibility of Witnesses.
5. False Explanation by Accused.
6. Acquittal of Appellant No. 3.

Summary:

1. Conviction u/s 302 and 120B I.P.C.:
The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge and the conviction was confirmed by the Supreme Court. Appellants 1 and 2 were convicted u/s 302 and 120B I.P.C., while Appellants 3 and 4 were convicted u/s 120B read with Section 302 I.P.C., all sentenced to life imprisonment.

2. Evidence and Circumstantial Proof:
The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence showing that Appellant No. 1 had an illicit relationship with Appellant No. 4, which Sohan Singh objected to. The evidence included testimonies from witnesses (P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, and P.W. 8) establishing the relationship and the objections raised by Sohan Singh. It was also established that Appellant No. 4 had threatened Karnal Kaur and arranged for the family to attend a Ramleela, leaving Sohan Singh alone.

3. Recovery of Weapons:
Evidence from P.W. 6, P.W. 7, and P.W. 15 indicated the recovery of a blood-stained Drat and pant at the instance of Appellant No. 1, and another Drat at the instance of Appellant No. 2. These recoveries were significant in establishing the involvement of the appellants in the murder.

4. Credibility of Witnesses:
The courts found the testimonies of the witnesses trustworthy and believable. The evidence of P.W. 9, who saw Appellants 1, 2, and 3 going towards the house of Sohan Singh, was crucial. However, the evidence against Appellant No. 3 was found insufficient due to substantial contradictions in the testimony of P.W. 5.

5. False Explanation by Accused:
Appellant No. 4's denial of leaving the Ramleela function was contradicted by witness testimonies, providing an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court cited precedents where false answers by the accused were considered as an additional link in the chain of circumstances.

6. Acquittal of Appellant No. 3:
The conviction of Appellant No. 3, Uttam Chand, was set aside due to insufficient evidence linking him to the conspiracy or the murder. He was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be set at liberty unless required in another case.

Conclusion:
The appeal against the conviction of Appellants 1, 2, and 4 was dismissed, and they were directed to undergo life imprisonment. The bail bonds were canceled, and the Sessions Judge was instructed to take necessary steps to ensure their imprisonment.