Brief Facts
- As per the prosecution case, a woman’s death was discovered in furtherance of the written report lodged by the Informant and brother-in-law of the deceased, wherein he alleged that the deceased was abducted by seven persons from their house in an incident which occurred at around 10:00 PM.
- Based on this information, an FIR was lodged which led to the filing of a chargesheet against the seven accused persons i.e., the Appellants.
- The Trial Court charged all seven accused persons for the commission of offences punishable u/s 323, 302, 364, 449, 450, 380, 34, and 120-B of IPC and convicted 5 accused persons for the offence under section 302/34 and 364/34 IPC on the basis of the oral testimony of the eye witness PW-2, PW-4, PW-5 and Informant PW-8. Later, the High Court also reversed the acquittal of the remaining two accused persons.
Issues
- In the case of abduction followed by murder, whether it is necessary to prove the commission of offence of abduction so as to prove the commission of murder?
- Whether the testimony of the eye witness can be discarded when the prosecution has not examined the natural present public persons and presence of the relatives of the decease, who have been examined as the eye witness, is in serious doubt?
- Whether the accused can be convicted merely on the basis of motive alone without the proof of the foundational facts?
- Whether the High Court was justified on relying on the testimony of PW-4 as eye-witness when the High Court itself discarded the testimony of PW-5, who was also on similar footing with PW-4?
Held
- The Apex Court set aside the order of the High Court and the Trial Court and acquitted all the accused persons as the testimony of the eye-witnesses were not found to be reliable and the prosecution failed to prove the chain of evidences to establish the offence of abduction of deceased by the accused persons. The Apex Court concluded that the conduct of the eye witnesses was unusual on many counts which creates serious doubts on these presence at the place of incidence.
- It is quite evident that the offence of murder was committed after the commission of the offence of abduction. There is a sequential relationship between the two offences and thus, in order to set up a case for the commission of the offence of murder, it is necessary to prove the commission of the offence of abduction by the accused persons/appellants. For, the chain, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, must be complete and consistent.
- Since the three eye witnesses were similarly placed as per their own version, the rejection of testimony of one witness ought to have raised a natural doubt on the testimonies of the other two witnesses unless they had a better explanation. However, no such doubt was entertained by the High Court and the impugned judgment offers no explanation for the same. In light of their own testimonies, none of the three eye witnesses were required to visit Sikandra Chowk or Simaltalla for going to their village.
- In the facts of the present case, the natural presence of the eye witnesses at the place of occurrence is under serious doubt, as discussed above, and for unexplained reasons, the naturally present public persons were not examined as witnesses in the matter. The non examination of natural witnesses such as Doman Tenti, Daso Mistry, Soordas, Kumud Ranjan Singh and many other neighbours who admittedly came out of their houses to witness the offence, coupled with the fact that the projected eye witnesses failed to explain their presence at the place of occurrence, renders the entire version of the prosecution as improbable and unreliable.
- As regards motive, we may suffice to say that motive has a bearing only when the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the ingredients of the offences under consideration. Without the proof of foundational facts, the case of the prosecution cannot succeed on the presence of motive alone. Moreover, the motive in the present matter could operate both ways. The accused persons and the eyewitnesses belong to the same family and the presence of a property related dispute is evident. In a hypothetical sense, both the sides could benefit from implicating the other. In such circumstances, placing reliance upon motive alone could be a double-edged sword. We say no more.
Relevant Para Nos.
- 18, 24, 25, 35, 36