1993 (11) TMI 254 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court were:

- Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused-respondent of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, despite the prosecution's evidence.

- Whether the evidence of the sole eyewitness, Rohan (PW-14), was reliable and sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder.

- Whether the delay in lodging the first information report (FIR) during the night of the incident justified rejection of the prosecution case.

- Whether the accused's conduct amounted to murder under Section 302 IPC or a lesser offence under Section 304 IPC.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Reliability and Sufficiency of Eyewitness Evidence (Rohan PW-14)

The Court examined the testimony of Rohan, the sole eyewitness, who accompanied the deceased on the motorcycle from Delhi to Rohtak and witnessed the entire sequence of events, including the altercation at Bahadurgarh, the repeated attempts by the accused to run them down with his car, and the fatal impact on Chetan.

The relevant legal framework recognizes that conviction can rest on the testimony of a sole witness if the court is convinced of the witness's truthfulness and presence at the scene beyond reasonable doubt. The Court noted that Rohan's testimony was detailed, consistent, and corroborated by multiple evidentiary elements, including:

• The accused's admission under Section 313 CrPC that his car was parked at the juice seller's shop and that there was an altercation with a boy who abused him.
• The presence of broken glass pieces and a plastic strip marked "Maruti-800" at the scene, which matched the damaged Maruti car of the accused seized subsequently.
• The damage localized to the right side of the accused's car, consistent with the injuries on the left side of the deceased's body found during post-mortem examination.
• The physical injuries on the deceased, including 11 wounds mostly on the left side, and incised wounds caused by the trolley's agricultural implements, consistent with the deceased being thrown onto the trolley after impact.

The Court found no material contradictions or demolishing cross-examination of Rohan's testimony. The High Court's rejection of Rohan's evidence was deemed unjustified, especially since it failed to provide reasons for such rejection beyond speculative assertions that the eyewitness evidence was a "belated attempt to improve testimony".

Delay in Lodging the First Information Report

The High Court had expressed doubt about the delay in lodging the FIR, which was filed the following morning rather than on the night of the incident. The Court analyzed the circumstances surrounding the delay, including:

• The emotional and psychological trauma experienced by Rohan, a 19-year-old who had narrowly escaped death and witnessed his brother's fatal injury.
• The absence of the victim's father, a military officer residing in Delhi, who only arrived at Rohtak early morning and then lodged the FIR based on Rohan's narration.
• The natural human response to such a traumatic event, which the Court recognized as a valid explanation for the delay.

The Court held that delay in lodging the FIR, if satisfactorily explained, cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case entirely. The Court emphasized that the prosecution unfolded in a natural manner and the delay did not create reasonable doubt about the occurrence.

Application of Circumstantial Evidence and Physical Evidence

The Court considered the circumstantial evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, including:

• Seizure of the damaged Maruti car from the accused's residence, with the right side badly damaged.
• Recovery of broken glass and blood stains from the car and the scene of occurrence.
• Mechanical examination confirming that the broken glass pieces found on the road matched the accused's car.
• Seizure of the accused's clothes and medical examination indicating injuries consistent with the incident.

This evidence corroborated Rohan's testimony and established the accused's presence and involvement in the fatal incident.

Whether the Offence is Murder under Section 302 IPC or a Lesser Offence under Section 304 IPC

The accused contended that even if the prosecution's case was accepted, the offence would only amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC. The Court rejected this contention, reasoning that:

• The accused made repeated attempts to run down the two brothers with his car after the initial altercation.
• The final impact was intentional and caused serious bodily injuries to Chetan, which the accused knew were likely to cause death.
• The accused's conduct fulfilled the ingredients of murder as defined under Section 300 IPC.

The Court thus held that the accused was liable for murder under Section 302 IPC.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The Court carefully examined the High Court's reasons for acquittal, particularly the doubts about Rohan's presence and the delay in FIR. It found these reasons insufficient and unsupported by evidence. The Court also considered the defence's admission of the altercation and the accused's presence at the scene, which corroborated the prosecution's narrative. The defence did not challenge Rohan's presence or the sequence of events but argued on the legal classification of the offence.

The Court gave weight to the prosecution's evidence and rejected the defence's attempt to downgrade the offence.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"A conviction can be based and the verdict of the court can rest even on the testimony of a sole witness, if the court is fully satisfied that such witness is a truthful witness and his presence at the time of occurrence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt."

"No adverse inference can be drawn in the facts and circumstances of the present case, because Rohan (PW-14) or anyone did not lodge the first information report during the night itself... If the prosecution explains the delay satisfactorily, the Court is not expected to reject the whole prosecution case merely on that ground."

"The accused intentionally caused such bodily injuries, as the accused knew to be likely to cause the death of Chetan. As such he committed the offence of murder within the meaning of Section 300, liable to be punished for an offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code."

The Court conclusively held that the High Court erred in acquitting the accused and set aside the acquittal, convicting the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The Court emphasized the reliability of the eyewitness testimony corroborated by physical and circumstantial evidence, and the sufficiency of the prosecution case to establish murder beyond reasonable doubt.