APEX COURT DIGEST - Jan.2017 [8]
Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 and
201 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short ‘IPC’).- where the Trial Court and the High Court, on appreciating the entire oral evidence, recorded categorical concurrent
findings of fact against the appellants (accused) about their complicity in
commission of crime in question which resulted in killing of mother and her
unmarried daughter.- HELD THAT - This Court, being the last Court of appeal, does
not re-visit and re-appreciate the entire oral evidence de novo in its
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution unless there are strong
and prima facie reasons to do so pointing out therein any apparent legal
and jurisdictional error prejudicing any rights of the accused.;
Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short ‘IPC’).- whether bones recovered were human or animal bones,- In our considered opinion, the disclosure statements made by the accused during their interrogation on the basis of which the recoveries of articles were made such as - gandasa, bones, ashes, blood stained bricks
and earth, tractor with cart, two plastic cans smelling diesel oil, which
were duly proved by the Investigating Officer are sufficient to sustain the
conviction when it is examined in the context of oral evidence. - Merely
because no expert opinion was obtained to prove as to whether bones
recovered were human or animal bones, in our view, would not weaken the
case of prosecution in the light of overwhelming evidence available on
record to prove the complicity of the appellants. ;
Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short ‘IPC’).- close relation with the deceased persons, she should not be
believed for want of evidence of any independent witness, deserves to be
rejected - HELD THAT IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT “There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused.” - “. ………. it is clear that a close relative cannot be characterised as an“interested” witness. He is a “natural” witness. His evidence, however, must be scrutinised carefully. If on such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based on the “sole” testimony of such witness. Close
relationship of witness with the deceased or victim is no ground to reject his evidence. On the contrary, close relative of the deceased would normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent one.”- We follow and apply this well settled principle of law for rejecting the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants.;
201 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short ‘IPC’).- where the Trial Court and the High Court, on appreciating the entire oral evidence, recorded categorical concurrent
findings of fact against the appellants (accused) about their complicity in
commission of crime in question which resulted in killing of mother and her
unmarried daughter.- HELD THAT - This Court, being the last Court of appeal, does
not re-visit and re-appreciate the entire oral evidence de novo in its
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution unless there are strong
and prima facie reasons to do so pointing out therein any apparent legal
and jurisdictional error prejudicing any rights of the accused.;
Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short ‘IPC’).- whether bones recovered were human or animal bones,- In our considered opinion, the disclosure statements made by the accused during their interrogation on the basis of which the recoveries of articles were made such as - gandasa, bones, ashes, blood stained bricks
and earth, tractor with cart, two plastic cans smelling diesel oil, which
were duly proved by the Investigating Officer are sufficient to sustain the
conviction when it is examined in the context of oral evidence. - Merely
because no expert opinion was obtained to prove as to whether bones
recovered were human or animal bones, in our view, would not weaken the
case of prosecution in the light of overwhelming evidence available on
record to prove the complicity of the appellants. ;
Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short ‘IPC’).- close relation with the deceased persons, she should not be
believed for want of evidence of any independent witness, deserves to be
rejected - HELD THAT IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT “There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused.” - “. ………. it is clear that a close relative cannot be characterised as an“interested” witness. He is a “natural” witness. His evidence, however, must be scrutinised carefully. If on such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based on the “sole” testimony of such witness. Close
relationship of witness with the deceased or victim is no ground to reject his evidence. On the contrary, close relative of the deceased would normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent one.”- We follow and apply this well settled principle of law for rejecting the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants.;