The Supreme Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice M R Shah and Krishna Murari said an accused in a murder case can be convicted even in the absence of recovery of the crime weapon, if there is direct evidence in the form of an eyewitness.(State vs Laly @ Manikandan)
The apex court setting aside the June 2018 verdict of the Madras High Court which had acquitted three accused in a murder case observed that the contention of the Parties that the original informant and other independent witnesses have not been examined and recovery of weapon not been proved, and so the accused should be acquitted cannot be accepted.
Facts of the case
As per the prosecution case, the accused murdered the deceased owing to animosity between the friend of the accused. The accused suspected the deceased of informing the whereabouts of his friend, who was murdered. The accused along with other accused chased down the deceased with weapons and killed him.
The investigation started on the FIR filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 506(2), 302 IPC r/w 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. All the accused pleaded not guilty and therefore they came to be tried by the Sessions Court for the aforesaid offences.
The Trial Court held the first accused guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and the other two accused for the offences under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000 each, in default, three months simple imprisonment.
The accused feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, preferred the appeals before the High Court. The High Court consequently acquitted the accused for the aforesaid offences for which they were convicted.
The State feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court acquitting the accused preferred the present appeals.
Contention of the Parties
The counsel appearing on behalf of the State, submitted that PW1 was present and he had seen the occurrence of the incident and that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1, who is the Eye Witness and has fully supported the case of the Prosecution.
The counsel appearing on behalf of the accused, submitted that out of the six witnesses examined by the prosecution as eyewitnesses, three witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. It was submitted that PW4 has been disbelieved even by the learned trial Court due to material contradictions in his deposition. Therefore, to rely upon the sole witness is not safe to convict the accused.
Court's observations and Judgment
The bench at the very outset taking note of the facts of the case and contention of the Parties remarked, "The submission on behalf of the accused that as the original informant – Mahendran has not been examined and that the other independent witnesses have not been examined and that the recovery of the weapon has not been proved and that there is a serious doubt about the timing and place of the incident, the accused are to be acquitted cannot be accepted."
The bench further observed, "Merely because the original complainant is not examined cannot be a ground to discard the deposition of PW1. As observed hereinabove, PW1 is the eye witness to the occurrence at both the places.
Similarly, assuming that the recovery of the weapon used is not established or proved also cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when there is a direct evidence of the eye witness. Recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence is not a sine qua non to convict the accused. If there is a direct evidence in the form of eye witness, even in the absence of recovery of weapon, the accused can be convicted. Similarly, even in the case of some contradictions with respect to timing of lodging the FIR/complaint cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when the prosecution case is based upon the deposition of eye witness."
The bench allowing the appeals remarked, "As observed hereinabove, PW1 is an eye witness. He has fully supported the case of the prosecution. As per settled position of law, there can be a conviction on the basis of the deposition of the sole eye witness, if the said witness is found to be trustworthy and/or reliable. As observed hereinabove, there is no reason to doubt the credibility and/or reliability of PW1. Therefore, it will be safe to convict the accused on the sole reliance of deposition of PW1"
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
