| Headnote |
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 r/w s.1208 - Murder - Criminal conspiracy -Dismembered parts of victim's body recovered from a lake - Case based on circumstantial evidence against accused-appellant and other accused persons - Conviction of appellant - Justification - Held: Justified - Evidence on record clearly established that appellant had adequate reason to harbour animosity towards o the victim 'P', as he may well have been unable to tolerate the intimacy that 'P' had developed with appellant's wife - PW testified that appellant had threatened that in the event that he was able to lay his hands on 'P', he would chop him up into pieces - The motive thus stood proved - Victim last seen with appellant (A-1) and A-2 - Recovery of chopper at the behest of appellant - Injuries revealed by post-mortem report established that dismemberment of parts of the body was possible by using a weapon like chopper· - Victim's skull recovered on basis of disclosure statement of appellant - Use of vehicle in the crime also stood proved - Appellant clearly involved in conspiracy ·to eliminate 'P' - Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.161 and 164 - Statements u/s.161 and u/s.164 - Difference - Held: Statements u/s.161 can be used only for the purpose of contradiction - Statements u/s. 164, however, can be used for both corroboration and contradiction - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.157. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.164 - Object of- Discussed. Criminal Law - Criminal conspiracy - Proof - Held: Offence of criminal conspiracy can be proved, either by adducing circumstantial evidence, or by way of necessary implication - However, if the circumstantial evidence is incomplete or vague, it becomes necessary for the prosecution to provide adequate proof, by adducing substantive evidence in court - In order to constitute the offence of conspiracy, it is not necessary that the person involved has knowledge of all the stages of action - Mere knowledge of the main object/purpose of conspiracy, would warrant the attraction of relevant penal provisions. Evidence - Weapon of offence - Recovered at the behest of the accused - Blood stuck on the weapon - Failure by serologist to detect origin of the blood due to dis-integration of the serum - Effect - Held: It does not mean that the blood stuck on the weapon of offence could not have been human blood at all - Sometimes it is possible, either because the stain is insufficient in itself, or due to haematological changes and plasmatic coagulation, that a serologist may fail to detect the origin of the blood in question - However, in such a case, unless the doubt is of a reasonable dimension, which a judicially conscientious mind may entertain with some objectivity, no benefit can be claimed by the accused in this regard - Once recovery was made in pursuance of disclosure by the accused, the matching or non-matching of the blood group (s) lost its' significance. Evidence Act, 1872 - s.3 - Appreciation of evidence - In civil case and in criminal case - Held: Basis for appreciating evidence in a civil or criminal case is same - However, since in a criminal case, the life and liberty of a person is involved, by way of judicial interpretation, courts have created the requirement of a high degree of proof.Evidence Act, 1872 - s.9 - Test identification parade - Held.· Conducting a test identification parade is meaningless if the witnesses know the accused, or if they have been shown his photographs, or if he has been exposed by the media to the public - In the instant case, just after the incident took place, the main accused being a highly ranked police official, wide publicity was given to the same by the media - Moreover, the witnesses made it clear that they were acquainted with the appellant - In such fact-situation, holding/ non-holding of Test Identification Parade lost its significance. Evidence Act, 1872 - s.134 - Evidence of witness - Appreciation of - Held: It is not the number of witnesses, but the quality of their evidence which is important - Evidence must be weighed and not counted. |
