“No Reason To Doubt The Testimony Of Eye Witness” Allahabad High Court Dismisses Criminal Appeal

Hon’ble Allahabad High Court recently dismissed the criminal appeal pending since 1983 and upheld the Life Imprisonment sentence awarded by learned Session Court to accused/convicts in a murder case, by finding that statement of eye-witness and other testimonies have proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

The convicts who have filed the criminal appeal have murdered the father of the complainant in a broad daylight by causing firearm injury. The complainant also stated that appellants have previously looted the house of the victim 4 years prior to this incident and there is ongoing animosity between them. The deceased was shot multiple times on his chest. Severe blow with farsa and axe were also given. His wrist was also cut and severed from his hand. The appellants got convicted after trial by the Sessions Court and thereafter they filed the present appeal.

CONTENTION OF APPELLANTS

Learned counsel for the convicts/appellants submitted that impugned judgment and order is erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law because there was mention of two more unknown persons in the FIR but those unknown persons could not be traced by the Investigating Officer. No weapon allegedly used in the crime was recovered by the Investigating Officer and further he raised some technical arguments in support of his contentions.

CONTENTION OF STATE

Contrary to it, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State respondent as well as learned counsel for the complainant submitted that in the present case the incident occurred in a broad day light i.e. at 5.30 pm in the month of June. The F.I.R was lodged promptly i.e. at 7.30 pm on the same day. The inquest was conducted without any delay. In the FIR out of four miscreants two were named and those are the convicts/appellants and two were unknown whom the complainant did not recognize as they were unknown persons but he has written in the FIR that he can recognize them if they are brought before him. The injuries are in corroboration to what has been mentioned in the FIR. It is further submitted that recovery of weapon is not necessary for convicting the accused if direct evidence is there. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that to prove the motive is also not necessary if there is eye witness account of the incident.

HON’BLE COURT’S OBSERVATIONS

Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Saroj Yadav considered the facts and evidence on record and on the argument of counsel for the appellant that name of P.W. is not in F.I.R., the Hon’ble court observed that :-

“Further it is settled law that F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia to mention every fact about the incident. The evidence of both eye witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 proves the incident and their narration of facts is very well being supported by the medical evidence given by the Doctor P.W. 3. Ante mortem injuries found on the body of the deceased corroborates the facts what has been stated in the F.I.R. and also proved by P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. There is no reason to doubt the testimony of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2.”

Further, on the point that no recovery was made, Hon’ble Division Bench relied on Apex Court finding in Mekala Sivaiah Versus State of Andhra Pradesh (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 253 and Kalua alias Koshal Kishore Versus State of Rajasthan (2019) 16 Supreme Court Cases 683 where it was held that

“When there is ample ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence, mere nonrecovery of weapon from the appellant would not materially affect the case of the prosecution.

iii. If the testimony of an eye witness is otherwise found trustworthy and reliable, the same cannot be disbelieved and rejected merely because certain insignificant, normal or natural contradictions have appeared into his testimony.”

Hon’ble Court further observed that there is a direct evidence of commission of crime, hence separate relevance of motive is not needed and in this regard, the Hon’ble Court relied on Apex Court ruling in Surinder Singh Versus State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) 2021 SCC Online SC 1135 where is was held that

“We are thus of the considered opinion that whilst motive is infallibly a crucial factor, and is a substantial aid for evincing the commission of an offence but the absence thereof is, however, not such a quintessential component which can be construed as fatal to the case of the prosecution, especially when all other factors point towards the guilt of the accused and testaments of eyewitnesses to the occurrence of a malfeasance are on record.”

Further, the Hon’ble court relied on Rahul Versus State of Haryana (2021) 11 Supreme Court Cases 149 where it was held that testimony of the related witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is a related witness.

In view of the above finding, Hon’ble court found that the conviction by the trial court is correct and dismissed the appeal and directed the convicts to surrender before the trial court within 10 days.

Case Title:-  Karuna Shankar & another Vs. State of U.P.

Case no. :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. – 267 of 1983

Order date :- 30.05.2023