TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the evidence of witnesses cross-examined as hostile or treated as court witnesses was to be rejected in entirety. (ii) Whether the dying declaration and the remaining eyewitness evidence proved that the accused caused the fatal spear injury. (iii) Whether the proved facts brought the case within the exception to murder so as to justify conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Issue (i): Whether the evidence of witnesses cross-examined as hostile or treated as court witnesses was to be rejected in entirety.
Analysis: Permission to cross-examine a witness under the criminal evidence rules cannot be used as a device merely to discard part of the testimony while retaining the rest on the same point. Where the prosecution treated witnesses as hostile or sought their examination as court witnesses only because they had not spoken of a quarrel before the investigating officer, their evidence could not be accepted in fragments on the same issue. The witness examined under the court's power was also not to be treated differently on the facts of the order passed.
Conclusion: The hostile and similarly treated witnesses were rightly excluded from reliance on the question of identity and occurrence.
Issue (ii): Whether the dying declaration and the remaining eyewitness evidence proved that the accused caused the fatal spear injury.
Analysis: The dying declaration was accepted as having named the accused as the assailant. The objections based on language, medical possibility, and alleged prompting were not sufficient to displace the statement. Independent support was found in the evidence of Amar Kinkar and Mahendra, whose testimony was held reliable despite discrepancies on minor details. The surrounding circumstances also supported the prosecution version and the objection as to improbability was rejected.
Conclusion: The evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused struck the deceased with the spear.
Issue (iii): Whether the proved facts brought the case within the exception to murder so as to justify conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Analysis: Although the evidence established an intentional spear attack, the surrounding circumstances showed that the accused was to receive the benefit of the account of quarrel and provocation spoken to by some witnesses. On that basis, the act was treated as falling within the first exception to murder.
Conclusion: The accused was guilty under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and not of murder under Section 300.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the accused on identity and liability, but the conviction was reduced from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, with sentence of transportation for life.
Ratio Decidendi: A witness treated as hostile may be excluded where cross-examination is used to discredit the witness on the same matter, and a reliable dying declaration supported by credible corroborative evidence can prove identity beyond reasonable doubt, while provocation may reduce murder to culpable homicide if the facts bring the case within the relevant exception.
TaxTMI 
