| Headnote |
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 r/w s.34 - Murder - Person shot down on road, while he was riding pillion seat of motorcycle driven by PW 16 - Appellant S allegedly drove his motorcycle to the left of PW16's motorcycle, while appellant , riding pillion, fired gun shots at the deceased from close range - Allegation that accused-appellants were part of the coal mafia and deceased, a sitting member of the State Legislative Assembly, incurred their wrath as he opposed their activities - Eye-witness account of PW16 and PW6 - Trial Court convicted the appellants and sentenced them to life imprisonment - High Court confirmed the conviction and also enhanced the sentence of life imprisonment to sentence of death - On appeal, held: The deceased was perceived by the appellants as a hurdle in their activities - The depositions of all the witnesses satisfactorily prove that the appellants were seen hanging around the place of occurrence on the incident date and were seen together riding a motorcycle proximate in point of time when the deceased was gunned down - Seizure evidence corroborated the prosecution version - Further corroboration from medical evidence - The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt , the sequence of events underlying the charge of murder levelled against the appellants - Conviction upheld but sentence modified to life imprisonment instead of death sentenceCriminal Trial:Motive - Importance of proof of motive - Distinction between cases where prosecution relies upon circumstantial evidence and where it relies upon the testimony of eye witnesses - Held: In the former category of cases, proof of motive itself constitutes a link in the chain of circumstances upon which the prosecution may rely - Proof of motive, however, recedes into the background in cases where the prosecution relies upon an eye-witness account' of the occurrence - That is because if the court, upon a proper appraisal of the deposition of the eye~witnesses, comes to the conclusion that the version given by them· is credible, absence of evidence to prove the· motive is rendered inconsequential - Conversely, even if prosecution succeeds in establishing a strong motive for the commission of the offence, bf!t the evidence of the eye-witnesses is found unreliable or unworthy of credit, existence of a motive does not by itself provide a sale ,basis for convicting, the accused. That does not, however, mean that proof of motive even in a case which rests on an eye-witness account does not stand strength to the prosecution case or fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion ::... Proof of motive in such a situation certainly helps the prosecution and supports eye-witness, The instant case rests upon the deposition of the eyewitnesses, hence, absence of motive would not by itself make any material difference, but if a motive is proved it would lend support to the prosecution version - The prosecution herein established the motive to fortify its charge against the accused-appellants.Witness - Examination of - Delay in examination - Effect - Held: Mere delay in examination of a particular witness does not, as a rule of universal application, render the prosecution case suspect - In a case where the investigating officer has reasons to believe that particular witness is an eye-witness to the) occurrence but,he does not examine him without any possible explanation for any such omission, the delay may assume importance and require the Court to closely scrutinize and evaluate the version of the witness . But in a case where the investigating officer had no such information about any particular individual being an eye- witness to the occurrence, mere delay in examining such a witness would not ipso facto render the testimony of the witness suspect or affect the prosecution version - In the instant case, the trial court and the High Court had accepted the explanation offered by the investigating officer for delay. No reason to take a different view or to reject the testimony of the witness only because his statement was recorded a month and half after the occurrence.Identification - Test identification parade (TIP) - Purpose of - Held: TIP is conducted with a view to strengthening the trustworthiness of the evidence - Such a TIP then provides corroboration to the witness in the Court who claims to identify the accused persons otherwise unknown to him - TIPs, therefore, remain in the realm of investigation - However, CrPC, does not oblige the investigating agency to necessarily hold a TIP nor is there any provision under which the accused may claim a right to the holding of a TIP - The failure of the investigating agency to hold a TIP does not, in that view, have the effect of weakening the evidence of identification in the Court - As to what should be the weight attached to such an identification is a matter which the Court will determine in the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case - In appropriate cases, the Court may accept the evidence of identification in the Court even without insisting on corroboration - On facts, the omission of the investigating agency to associate PW16 with the TIP in which PW1 identified accused-appellant U did not ipso jure prove fatal to the case of the prosecution, although the investigating agency could and indeed ought to have associated the said witness also with the TIP especially when the witness had not claimed familiarity with the accused-U before the incident - The omission did not affect the credibility of the identification of the said appellant by PW16 in the Court - That is because the manner in which the incident had taken place and the opportunity which PW16 had, to see and observe the actions of appellant U were sufficient for the· witness to identify him in the Court- Absence of TIP and the failure of the Investigating Officer to associate the witness with the same did not, therefore, make any material difference in the instant case. Investigation - Deficiencies in investigation - Effect of, on prosecution case - Held: Deficiencies in investigation by way of omissions and lapses on the. part of investigating agency cannot by themselves justify a total rejection of the prosecution case - On facts, the failure on the part of the investigating officer in sending the blood stained clothes to FSL and the empty cartridges to the ballistic expert was not sufficient to reject the version given by the eye witnesses -Especially so, when a reference to the ballistic expert would not have had much relevance since the weapon from which the bullets were fired had not been recovered from the accused and was not, therefore, available for comparison by the expert.Sentence/Sentencing - Death sentence - Commutation to life, if warranted - 'Rarest of rare' test - Murder of sitting member of State Legislative Assembly - Accused-appellants were part of the coal mafia and deceased being opposed to such activities incurred their wrath and got killed - Trial Court convicted the appellants but did not find it to be a rarest of rare case and awarded them life sentence - High Court enhanced the sentence by imposing upon the accused- appellants the extreme penalty of death- Whether the present case was one of those rare of rarest cases where High Court was justified in imposing extreme penalty of death upon the appellants - No - Reasons being, firstly, because the appellants were not professional killers - Secondly, because even when the deceased was a politician there was no political angle to his killing - Thirdly, because while all culpable homicides amounting to murder are inhuman, hence legally and ethically unacceptable yet herein there was nothing particularly brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly in the manner of its execution so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community or exhaust depravity and meanness on the part of the accused-appellants to call for the extreme penalty - Fourthly, because there was difference of opinion between the trial court and the High Court on the question of sentence to be awarded to the convicts. Considering all the circumstances, death sentence awarded to the accused-appellants commuted to life imprisonment. |
