| Headnote |
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 – Abduction and murder of husband of complainant (PW1) – Prosecution case was that accused no.1 wanted to take PW1 as his third wife knowing that she was already married to victim-deceased and made several attempts with the help of other accused to severe the relationship between PW1 and her husband – Prior to the day of incident, the deceased and PW1 were abducted by accused no.1 and his henchmen but on the same day were released for which a separate complaint was lodged by PW1 and separate trial was conducted – Subsequent to this event of abduction, accused committed murder of the PW1’s husband so as to marry PW1 without any obstruction – Conviction of appellant by trial court under ss.364, 304 Part-I and 201 – High Court modified conviction under s.304 Part-I to one under s.302 – Appeal against conviction – Held: There was detailed deposition of PW-1 as to how accused no.1 wanted to marry her and how he often tried to lure her through undue favours, role of each of the appellants in the crime, last seen circumstance as well as the identification of the personal belongings of the deceased and his dead body – The evidence of PW1 was fully supported by the evidence of PW2, the mother of PW1 – Based on the confession of accused no.6, recovery of wallet containing photograph of PW1, gold chain etc. was effected from the house of accused no.6 and identified by PW1 and her family as belonging to the deceased – Recovery of body at the instance of accused no.2 and the identification of body as that of her husband by PW1, her family as well as by the accused, on the basis of photographs, the clothes and belongings of the deceased and his scar stood proved beyond reasonable doubt – The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 with regard to the motive for commission of the offence, the last seen circumstance and recovery as well as the identification of the dead body was consistent with the case of the prosecution – The superimposition test strengthened the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 regarding the identification of the body – Therefore, no case was made out for interference with the conviction – Evidence – Circumstantial evidence. First Information Report: Plea of the accused-appellant that there cannot be a second FIR relating to the same incident and that the incident of murder reported in FIR was merely a continuation of the earlier offence of abduction which had triggered proceedings pursuant to the FIR – Held: Plea is not sustainable – There is no doubt that the case arising out of a second FIR, if relates to a separate transaction, cannot be investigated along with a previous FIR under the clause ‘further investigation’ as contemplated under ss.8 to s.173 of the Cr.P.C. – In the instant case, the time and place of occurrence of the two incidents were different – Even the number of accused involved in the incidents was different – There was no continuity of action from the sequence of events either – The first offence was committed with the intention to abduct the deceased and PW1, the purpose for which was merely to threaten and pressurize them – In contrast, the intention behind the second offence was to murder the deceased with a view to permanently get rid of him – Therefore, unity of purpose and design between the two offences was also absent – Thus, the incident of murder was entirely separate and distinct from the earlier incident of abduction – Further investigation, as envisaged under ss.8 of s.173 of the Cr.P.C, connotes investigation of the case in continuation of an earlier investigation with respect to which the chargesheet was already filed – In case a fresh offence is committed during the course of the earlier investigation, which is distinct from the offence being investigated, such fresh offence cannot be investigated as part of the pending case, and should instead be investigated afresh – The separate first information lodged in this case is, therefore, just, legal and proper – Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.173(8) – Investigation. Evidence: Circumstantial evidence – Reliability of – Held: Human agency may be faulty in expressing the picturisation of the actual incident, but circumstances cannot fail or be ignored – The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution should be of a conclusive nature and they should be such as to exclude every other hypothesis except the one to be proved by the prosecution regarding the guilt of the accused – There must be a chain of evidence proving the circumstances so complete so as to not leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion of innocence of the accused – Circumstantial evidence – Penal Code, 1860 – s.302. Evidence Act, 1872: s.45 – Expert evidence – DNA Evidence – Evidentiary value of – Held: DNA evidence is in the nature of opinion evidence as envisaged in s.45 of the Evidence Act – Undoubtedly, an expert giving evidence before the Court plays a crucial role, especially since the entire purpose and object of opinion evidence is to aid the Court in forming its opinion on questions concerning foreign law, science, art, etc., on which the Court might not have the technical expertise to form an opinion on its own – In criminal cases, such questions may pertain to aspects such as ballistics, fingerprint matching, handwriting comparison, and even DNA testing or superimposition techniques – Undoubtedly, it is the duty of an expert witness to assist the Court effectively by furnishing it with the relevant report based on his expertise along with his reasons, so that the Court may form its independent judgment by assessing such materials and reasons furnished by the expert for coming to an appropriate conclusion – However, the opinion evidence is advisory in nature, and the Court is not bound by the evidence of the experts – DNA Evidence. Evidence Act, 1872: s.45 – Superimposition test conducted for identifying the deceased – Evidentiary value of – Held: The evidence on superimposition is also based on experts’ opinion – A superimposition test cannot be taken as a conclusive one for the identification of a dead body, because by itself it may not conclusively establish identification – In the instant case, High Court accepted the expert testimony on this aspect since the superimposition test was merely one piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 in order to strengthen its case – Moreover, it was evident from the testimony of PW34, who conducted the superimposition test, that the test was conducted by using three different methods, i.e. video superimposition, visual observation, and dental trait superimposition – Therefore, the scientific evidence of PW34 was rightly believed by the Trial Court as well as by the High Court, and strengthened the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 regarding the identification of the body – Though a DNA test would have helped the Courts immensely in determining the reliability of the identification of the body of the deceased, in the presence of other reliable evidence on record in favour of the prosecution version on this aspect, the contention that the non-conducting of a DNA test and the reliance on evidence regarding identification through superimposition is improper is rejected – This is all the more true since no material was forthcoming to the effect that the parents of the deceased were alive during the relevant period, so as to conduct comparative DNA tests – Superimposition test. |
