1991 (7) TMI 382 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Affirms Murder Conviction with Eyewitness Testimony & Hostile Witness Treatment

Khujji Versus State of Madhya Pradesh

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC. The court found the evidence, including ... - Issues Involved:1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC.2. Reliability of eyewitnesses.3. Validity of the First Information Report (FIR).4. Discovery of weapons and blood-stained clothes.5. Legal implications of hostile witnesses.6. Application of Section 34 IPC (common intention).Detailed Analysis:1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC:The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Gulab. The trial court and the High Court both found the appellant guilty, but the appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove his involvement in the murder.2. Reliability of Eyewitnesses:The prosecution relied on three eyewitnesses: PW 1 Komal Chand, PW 3 Kishan Lal, and PW 4 Ramesh. The trial court rejected the evidence of PW 3 and PW 4 as they were declared hostile and did not identify the appellant as the assailant. However, the High Court relied on the testimony of PW 1 Komal Chand, who identified the appellant and provided a detailed account of the incident. The High Court noted that PW 1's cross-examination occurred a month after his examination-in-chief, during which time he may have been influenced or threatened.3. Validity of the First Information Report (FIR):The FIR was lodged by PW 4 Ramesh immediately after the incident. Although PW 4 later disowned the FIR, the court found that the detailed narration in the FIR, made soon after the incident, was credible. The FIR provided specific details about the incident and the assailants, which supported the prosecution's case.4. Discovery of Weapons and Blood-Stained Clothes:The appellant and his companions discovered weapons used in the crime, which were found to have human blood stains. The appellant's clothes also had human blood stains. The trial court and the High Court considered these discoveries as corroborative evidence supporting the prosecution's case. The appellant's inability to explain the presence of human blood on his clothes was seen as a significant incriminating factor.5. Legal Implications of Hostile Witnesses:The trial court erred in completely rejecting the evidence of PW 3 and PW 4 merely because they were declared hostile. The court should have scrutinized their evidence to the extent it was reliable. The High Court did not assess their evidence, relying solely on PW 1 Komal Chand's testimony. The Supreme Court emphasized that the evidence of hostile witnesses is not entirely effaced and can be considered if found dependable upon careful scrutiny.6. Application of Section 34 IPC (Common Intention):The appellant argued that he could not be convicted under Section 302 IPC without a finding that he inflicted the fatal injury. The court noted that multiple persons participated in the assault, and the appellant could be convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC, which deals with common intention. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view that the appellant, along with others, had a common intention to commit the murder, thereby sustaining his conviction under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC. The court found that the evidence, including the testimony of PW 1 Komal Chand, the FIR, and the discovery of weapons and blood-stained clothes, sufficiently established the appellant's involvement in the murder. The court also clarified the legal position regarding the treatment of hostile witnesses and the application of Section 34 IPC.