The Division Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Vikram Nath of the Apex Court in the case of Ajai Alias Ajju Etc. Etc. Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh held that it is not the quantity of the witnesses but the quality of witnesses that matters. Additionally, the nonexamination of the statement according to Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not influence the findings and judgements made by the Courts. It was up to the Investigating Officer to record the statement in accordance with Section 164 Cr.P.C. If he did not deem it necessary in his wisdom, it cannot possibly have any impact on witness testimony or the other relevant evidence presented at trial.
Brief Facts:
A charge sheet was filed against the 4 accused for the murder of 4 deceased and attempting in murdering another. The Trial Court convicted all the 4 Accused under Sections 302/149 and Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 and other allied offences under the Arms Act, 1959 and awarded them a death sentence and life imprisonment, and other lesser sentences for different offences proved. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred before the High Court and the High Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. Hence, the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellants:
It was contended that the solitary eyewitness was related to the deceased, therefore, she should not be considered as a reliable witness. Furthermore, it was contended that in the first instance, the eyewitness did not disclose the name of the assailants in front of villagers and other family members. Also, the statement of the eye-witness was not recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the magistrate which creates significant doubt.
Contentions of the State:
It was contended that the Appellants, who were the deceased's neighbours and close relatives, decided to settle their score of hostility by killing four members of the same family brutally and also making an attempt to kill the injured witness to take possession of the property. Therefore, no leniency should be shown toward them and the Trial Court’s decision of awarding the death sentence should be restored.
Observations of the Court:
It was observed that the names of the Assailants were withheld knowingly and for good reason. The deceased’s daughters had to defend their lives or they would have also been put to death.
It was opined that it is not the quantity of the witnesses but the quality of witnesses which matters. Additionally, the nonexamination of the statement according to Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not influence the findings and judgements made by the Courts. It was up to the Investigating Officer to record the statement in accordance with Section 164 Cr.P.C. If he did not deem it necessary in his wisdom, it cannot possibly have any impact on witness testimony or the other relevant evidence presented at trial.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the aforementioned observations, the Top Court confirmed the order passed by the High Court and held that the High Court has given sound and cogent reasons for commuting the death sentence into a life sentence.
Case Title: Ajai Alias Ajju Etc. Etc. Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Case No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 598 – 600 of 2013
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 103 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath
Advocate for Petitioner: Advs. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Rishi Malhotra
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Sarvesh Singh Baghel
Read Judgement@ LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
