Brief Facts
- FIR was filed against the accused Appellants, A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 u/s 302, 307, 148, r/w 149, IPC, u/s 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. It was alleged that the scooter of A-1 bumped into PW-3 causing him minor injuries to little and ring figure and thereafter PW-3 slapped A-1. On hearing the commotion, PW-4, PW-5 and deceased persons came and separated PW-3 and A-1. Within 15 minutes, Appellants came to the place of incidence with weapons and attacked the victims (deceased), PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5.
- The Trial Court convicted the accused persons, against which appeal was preferred.
- The Additional Sessions Judge upheld the said sentence of conviction in respect of A1 to A4, however, it acquitted the A5, which was maintained by the .High Court.
- An SLP was filed by the accused persons against the sentence of their conviction.
Issues
- Relevancy of the statements of injured eye -witness.
- Whether examination of independent witness is indispensable requisite?
- Whether there has to be any fixed time frame to establish common intention of the accused persons?
- Interpretation of term “failure of justice” under section 464 of the CrPC.
- Whether the conviction of the accused persons and the sentence imposed on them warrant interdiction?
Held
- The Apex Court dismissed the appeal and the conviction was affirmed.
Testimony of injured eye -witness
- The sworn testimonies provided by injured witnesses generally carry significant evidentiary weight. Such testimonies cannot be dismissed as unreliable unless there are pellucid and substantial discrepancies or contradictions that undermine their credibility. If there is any exaggeration in the deposition that is immaterial to the case, such exaggeration should be disregarded; however, it does not warrant the rejection of the entire evidence.
Examination of independent witness not always necessary
- It is also settled law that examination of independent witness is not an indispensable requisite if the testimonies of other witnesses are deemed trustworthy and reliable. Non-examination of any independent witness by the prosecution will not go to the root of the matter affecting the decision of the court, unless other witnesses’ testimonies and evidences are scant to establish the guilt of the accused.
Common intention: No time frame
- We are of the view that there cannot be a fixed timeframe for formation of common intention. It is not essential for the perpetrators to have had prior meetings to conspire or make preparations for the crime. Common intention to commit murder can arise even moments before the commission of the act. Since common intention is a mental state of the perpetrators, it is inherently challenging to substantiate directly. Instead, it can be inferred from the conduct of the perpetrators immediately before, during, and after the commission of the act.
Failure of justice” under section 464 of CrPC
- Law is well-settled that in order to judge whether a failure of justice has been occasioned, it will be relevant to examine whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which he is being convicted and whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him clearly and whether he got a fair chance to defend himself.
Relevant Para Nos.
- 17, 25, 27, 29