The Supreme Court has clarified that a conviction for a serious offence like murder can be sustained on the basis of ocular evidence that is found to be consistent, trustworthy, and reliable, even if the eyewitnesses are related to the deceased. Essentially, the Court ruled that the non-recovery of the weapon of assault is not fatal to the prosecution’s case and is not a sine qua non for conviction, especially when direct evidence is corroborated by other evidence on record.
Further, the Court emphasised that any procedural irregularity, such as an alleged defect in the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972, does not ipso facto vitiate the trial unless it is demonstrated by the accused that the error has caused actual and material prejudice, resulting in a failure of justice.
A Two-Judge Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar found the testimony of the four eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution to be consistent, reliable, and confidence-inspiring. It observed that the presence of these witnesses at the scene of the incident was natural, and their evidence could not be discarded merely on the ground that they were related to the deceased. Also, any minor inconsistencies in their statements were deemed insufficient to weaken the prosecution’s case.
The Bench addressed the appellants’ argument that the failure to recover the weapons of assault created doubt about the prosecution’s case, and held that the recovery of weapons is not a sine qua non for convicting an accused, and the absence of such recovery does not weaken the prosecution’s case when other reliable evidence, such as credible eyewitness testimony, is on record. The Bench reiterated the principle that non-recovery of a weapon is not fatal where there is clinching and direct ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence.
The Bench considered the contention that the examination of the appellants under Section 313 of the CrPC was defective as similar and general questions were put to all accused. It observed that while there was some similarity, the incriminating circumstances were indeed put to the appellants. Hence, an omission or inadequate questioning under Section 313 CrPC does not automatically lead to an assumption of prejudice.
Thus, the Bench concluded that it is not enough for an accused to show they were not properly questioned; they must also show that such non-examination has actually and materially prejudiced him and has resulted in failure of justice. As in this case, the appellants failed to demonstrate any such prejudice, the Bench refused to alter the order of conviction.
Briefly, the case of the prosecution is based on information provided by Chetan Mandal, the brother of one of the deceased. On August 15, 1985, the informant heard shouts from his brother, and upon coming out of his house, he witnessed several individuals armed with weapons. The informant saw these persons dragging his brother and his nephew out of their house and into a passage, where they were assaulted with the weapons until they died on the spot.
The motive for the crime was an altercation that occurred earlier the same day, when two goats belonging to the accused grazed the crops of the co-accused, leading to the accused issuing threats of dire consequences. The appellants were therefore convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and this conviction was subsequently upheld by the High Court.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Anjana Prakash, AOR Abhay Kumar, along with Advocates Shagun Ruhil, Anuj Prakash, Pradum Kumar, Niraj Dubey, Rakesh Kumar, Karan Chopra, Shreenivash, Kusum Pandey, and Firoz Gandhi, for the Appellant
AOR Madhusmita Bora, along with Advocates Vishnu Sharma, Pawan Kishore Singh, Dipankar Singh, and Anupama Sharma, for the Respondent
