Brief Facts
- An incident took place on 09.01.1999 in Haryana, in which Akbar (deceased) was killed and Deenu (PW-1), Ahmad (PW-2), and Harun were injured. Four accused—Mohd. Yunus (A1), Mohd. Jamil (A2), Ghasita (A3), and Akhtar Hussain (A4)—were charged under Sections 302, 323, and 34 IPC.
- According to the prosecution, on 09.01.1999 at 9:10 PM, the accused persons armed with weapons attacked the deceased and witnesses due to a previous fight. A3 and A4 inflicted Pharsa blows on the deceased’s head, A2 struck him with a Kulhari, and A1 hit him with a lathi. The deceased succumbed to injuries on 11.01.1999.
- A1, A2, and A3 were tried together in the first trial. During this time, A4 was absconding and was tried later in a separate trial. While A2 was convicted under Sections 302 and 323 r/w 34 IPC, A1 was convicted only under Section 323 IPC, and A3 died during proceedings. A4 was acquitted and the acquittal was not challenged.
- The High Court partially allowed A1’s appeal, acquitting him under Section 302/34 IPC and convicting him under Section 323 IPC. The conviction of A2 under Section 302/34 IPC was upheld. The State challenged A1’s acquittal under Section 302/34 IPC, while A2 challenged his conviction.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified in convicting A1 only under section 323 while acquitting him under section 302/34, and convicting and sentencing A2 under section 302 and 323 read with section 34?
- Whether in trial under section 302 IPC, it is safe to convict on the basis of the statement of an untrustworthy witness?
Held
- The Supreme Court set aside A2’s conviction under Section 302/34 IPC but maintained his conviction under Section 323/34 IPC. As he had already undergone imprisonment for more than six months, his bail bonds were discharged. The Court dismissed the appeal by the State challenging A1’s acquittal under Section 302/34 IPC.
- The Supreme Court found that the statements of the two main prosecution witnesses (Deenu and Ahmad) were not reliable as they were contradictory and showed evidence of twisting facts and making improvements when examined in separate trials. Moreover, there were material on record to prove the enmity of the parties.
- The Court held that for a trial under Section 302 IPC, if a witness is branded as untrustworthy having allegedly twisted facts and made contrary statements, it is not safe to impose conviction based on such testimony.
- When there is an effort to falsely implicate one accused person, statements made by such eyewitnesses cannot be relied upon without strong corroboration. The Court noted that the recovery of weapons (A2 and A1) was not proved.
Relevant Paras
- 17, 18, 20, 21