2002 (8) TMI 895 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this judgment are:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC (simpliciter) without a substantive charge under Section 302 IPC is valid, especially when the conviction was not under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC as originally charged.

2. Whether the appellant could be convicted on the same evidence on which other accused persons were acquitted by the High Court.

3. The reliability and credibility of the eye-witnesses' testimony, particularly when the witnesses were allegedly inimically disposed to the accused and had inconsistencies in their evidence.

4. The effect of acquittal of some accused on the conviction of the appellant under the charge of murder in furtherance of common intention.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Conviction under Section 302 IPC (simpliciter) without Substantive Charge:

The legal framework involves the interpretation of Sections 302, 149, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 302 IPC punishes murder; Section 149 deals with liability of every member of unlawful assembly for the offence committed in prosecution of common object; Section 34 deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

The Court referred to several precedents, including Subran v. State of Kerala, Atmaram Zingaraji v. State of Maharashtra, Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra, and others, which clarify that:

• Conviction under Section 302 IPC simpliciter without aid of Section 149 is permissible only if the accused's individual act caused the fatal injury independently sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, supported by medical evidence.
• Where an accused is convicted alone under Section 302 IPC, the evidence must prove that his act alone caused death.
• Where multiple accused are charged under Section 302 read with Section 149 and some are acquitted, the conviction of the remaining accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 may not be sustainable unless the common object and participation are established.
• Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 can be converted to Section 302 read with Section 34 if fewer than five persons are found guilty acting with common intention.

Applying these principles, the Court examined whether the appellant's individual acts caused fatal injuries independently sufficient to cause death. The eye-witnesses attributed specific overt acts to the appellant, including hacking the deceased on the neck with an axe, corroborated by medical evidence describing fatal incised wounds on the neck and head.

The Court concluded that the appellant's acts were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, justifying conviction under Section 302 IPC simpliciter.

2. Reliance on Same Evidence for Conviction of Appellant and Acquittal of Others:

The appellant contended that since other accused were acquitted by the High Court on the same evidence, his conviction could not be sustained. The Court rejected this contention on two grounds:

• The High Court's acquittal of other accused was based on misappreciation and cryptic dismissal of the eye-witness evidence without proper discussion.
• The appellant's specific overt acts were clearly established by eye-witness testimony and corroborated by medical evidence, establishing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court emphasized that acquittal of others does not necessarily preclude conviction of one accused if the evidence against him is distinct and cogent.

3. Credibility and Reliability of Eye-Witnesses:

The High Court had doubted the reliability of the three eye-witnesses (P.Ws. 1 to 3), citing their inimical disposition towards the accused, inconsistencies in their statements, and false evidence regarding the registration number of a scooter.

The Trial Court, however, after thorough scrutiny, accepted their evidence as natural, reliable, and truthful. The Trial Court noted that all witnesses and accused belonged to the same faction-ridden village where animosity and multiple criminal cases existed on both sides, making it difficult to find unbiased witnesses.

The Court held that the mere fact of animosity does not render witness testimony inadmissible or unreliable. Instead, such evidence must be examined with care and caution in light of corroborative medical and other evidence. The Court agreed with the Trial Court's approach and rejected the High Court's wholesale rejection of the eye-witnesses' evidence.

Regarding the alleged false statement about the scooter's registration number, the Court found that this was immaterial to the credibility of the witnesses. The witnesses consistently stated that the appellant was present and actively participated in the attack.

4. Effect of Acquittal of Other Accused on Conviction of Appellant:

The Court examined precedents such as Krishna Govind Patil and Achhey Lal, which hold that if some accused are acquitted, the conviction of others under Section 149 IPC may not stand unless the unlawful assembly still exists with five or more persons or the common intention is otherwise established.

However, since the Court found that the acquittal of other accused was erroneous and based on misappreciation, it held that such acquittals do not affect the appellant's conviction. The appellant was found guilty of specific overt acts causing death, supported by medical evidence, and thus liable under Section 302 IPC simpliciter.

Key Evidence and Findings:

• Eye-witness testimony (P.Ws. 1 to 3) describing the sequence of events, identification of accused, and specific acts of violence inflicted on the deceased.
• Medical evidence (P.W.9) detailing 21 injuries on the deceased, including incised wounds on the neck and head, cutting vital structures such as trachea, larynx, and blood vessels, causing death due to hemorrhage and shock.
• Admission of factional rivalry and multiple criminal cases between parties, explaining the presence of animosity but not negating reliability of witnesses.
• Presence of accused and witnesses from the same village, ruling out mistaken identity.

Conclusions:

The Court concluded that the appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC simpliciter was justified on the basis of the evidence. The acquittal of other accused was erroneous and did not preclude the appellant's conviction. The Court upheld the Trial Court's acceptance of the eye-witnesses' testimony as credible and reliable despite animosity, and rejected the High Court's contrary findings.

Significant Holdings:

"The conviction under Section 302 simpliciter without aid of Section 149 is permissible if overt act is attributed to the accused resulting in the fatal injury which is independently sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased and is supported by medical evidence."

"The witnesses and the accused are from the same village and the incident had happened on 13th October, 1992 at about 5.30 p.m. There cannot be any scope of mistaken identity of the accused."

"The mere fact that witnesses are inimically disposed to the accused alone would be no ground to throw away their otherwise reliable, natural and credit worthy statement."

"Wrong acquittal of the accused will send a wrong signal to the society... What is apparent from the aforesaid discussion is that the acquittal of the accused recorded by the High Court was clearly contrary to the evidence on record and on the basis of mis-appreciation of eye witnesses account."

"The acquittal of accused Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10 would not affect the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 with the aid of Section 149 though their acquittal stood because specific overt acts have been attributed to the appellant by eye-witnesses, corroborated by medical evidence, which are independently sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased."

"There is no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed."