Brief Facts
- The Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under section 302/149 of IPC and other related offences, including under the Arms Act, 1959. The two daughters of deceased Vijay Pal Singh i.e. Ms. Pinky and Ms. Rashmi were the eye-witnesses of the entire act of gruesome killing and Ms. Pinky has herself sustained injury during the commission of offence. The accused Brij Pal was the brother of Vijay Pal Singh and accused Mukesh was his neighbour. As per the testimony of injured witness accused persons assaulted their parents with talwar and gandasa and thereafter one Abrar and Pramod entered the house and killed the other members of family.
- Police recorded the statements of both the sisters and other witnesses. During the course of trial all the witnesses supported the version of the prosecution, however, only Ms. Pinky was examined during the trial and Ms. Rashmi was not examined as the witness in the trial.
- The High Court affirmed the convictions but commuted the death sentences to life imprisonment. The State has also appealed for the death sentences to be reinstated and the Appellant has filed an appeal against the order of the conviction.
Issues
- How reliable is the testimony of a sole eyewitness who had a personal relationship with the deceased?
- Whether failure to record the statements of material eye witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C have any bearing on the trial, when such witness has disposed in light of their statements recorded under section 161 CrPC?
- Whether no examination of Ms. Rashmi i.e. the one of the two eye witnesses, would have any material bearing when the other injured eye-witness has already deposed against the accused persons?
Held
- The Apex Court upheld the conviction of the accused persons and the offence stood proven from the statement of the inured eye witness.
- It is the discretion of the prosecution to lead as much evidence as is necessary for proving the charge. It is not the quantity of the witnesses but the quality of witnesses which matters.
- Non-examination of the statement under section 164 CrPC also has no relevance or bearing to the findings and conclusions arrived at by the courts below. It was for the Investigating Officer to have got the statement under section 164 CrPC recorded. If he did not think it necessary in his wisdom, it cannot have any bearing on the testimony of PW-1 and the other material evidence led during trial.
Relevant Para No.
- 21, 22