A Division Bench of Apex Court comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice R Subhash Reddy has in the case of Rahul v. State of Haryana observed that the evidence of interested person can be considered provided such evidence is corroborated by other evidence on record.
“Merely because PW3 and PW12 are related, by itself is no ground, to reject their testimony. Further, a close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. It is fairly well settled proposition that even the evidence of interested person can also be considered provided such evidence is corroborated by other evidence on record.”
Factual Background
This appeal was preferred, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 06th December 2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, confirming the conviction recorded and sentence imposed, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani.
Trial Court Findings
After completion of the trial, the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, by recording a finding that the prosecution has proved the charges, vide judgment dated 17.10.2012, held that both the accused Rahul (appellant herein) and Ramesh were guilty for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and appellant Rahul was also found guilty for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and convicted them accordingly.
Both the accused were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/ each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year each under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and further sentenced appellant Rahul to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Appeal before the High Court
Aggrieved by the conviction recorded and sentence imposed- the appellant, along with another accused; namely, Ramesh approached the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The High Court, while confirming the conviction recorded and sentence imposed on the appellant, has allowed the appeal partly by acquitting the other accused, namely, Ramesh. The High Court has held that prosecution has failed to prove its case against Ramesh (appellant before High Court) beyond reasonable doubt.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
After having closely scrutinized the oral evidence on record coupled with the documentary evidence, the Court observed that:
"there is a complete chain of evidence which would lead to irresistible conclusion that the appellant-accused has committed the offence and none else. Even the recoveries are sufficiently proved with the cogent evidence. In the disclosure statement the appellant-accused has stated that he has kept the weapon with his Bua at House No. 160, Old Housing Board Colony, Bhiwani. Though she was examined on behalf of the accused to disprove the recovery, at the same time, she has admitted in the cross-examination that police have visited her place a year and a half earlier to her statement.
If this part of evidence is examined, coupled with the other documentary evidence on seizure, there is no reason to disbelieve the recovery of weapon, from the residence of appellant’s Bua (...) All the recoveries have been proved by examining witnesses for such recoveries. Only in view of the disclosure statement Ex.PX recoveries of pistol .315 bore and cartridges were made from the house of his Bua at Bhiwani vide recovery memo Ex.PY on 24.08.2010. Further, as per the FSL report Ex.PXX, the country made pistol .315 bore used by the accused-appellant for committing the murder of the deceased was found in working order and both the fired cartridges recovered from the spot and fired bullet taken out from the body of the deceased, are found fired from the country made pistol recovered at the instance of accused (Rahul).
Further, the injuries on the person of deceased have been proved by doctor who was examined as PW5. The material evidence on record produced by the prosecution has been further corroborated by call details of mobile phones of Ramesh, Ashok Kumar and Jitender and such call details have been proved by the statement of PW14. Further, it is also well settled that if other evidence on record clearly establishes that the deceased was murdered by the appellant by using firearm, the factum of motive loses its importance, more so, in this case the motive has been established by leading cogent evidence to show that only because the deceased had developed relationship with appellant’s wife Priyanka, has decided to eliminate the deceased.”
It was further stated by the Court that:
“From the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent evidence. Further, the motive is also proved by the prosecution.”
Prosecution proved test laid down in Sanjay Thakran's Case beyond reasonable doubt
"In the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Etc. relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court has held that certain tests are to be fulfilled by the prosecution by leading cogent evidence, when the case rests upon circumstantial evidence. However, having regard to evidence on record in this case on hand, we are clearly of the view that the prosecution has satisfied all the tests mentioned in the case of Sanjay Thakran (supra) to bring home the guilt of the accused, by resting upon the circumstantial evidence.
If the factum of recoveries is considered along with other evidence in entirety, it gives an irresistible conclusion that the appellant alone has committed offence by using the weapon which is recovered from the house of DW1 who is the Bua of the appellant. Further, it is also to be noted that whether the guilt of the accused is proved or not based on the circumstantial evidence, each case has to be judged on the overall assessment of the evidence on record, as such we are of the view that the case law which is referred above, relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, would not render any assistance to accept his plea that the appellant was falsely implicated.”
Held
“For the aforesaid reasons, as the appeal is devoid of merits, same is dismissed. However, as it is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that he has already served sentence for more than 11 years, it is needless to observe that after completing 14 years of sentence it is open to the appellant to make representation for remission of the sentence. If such representation is made the concerned authority/Jail Superintendent has to send the same to the Government which is to be considered in accordance with the policy of the State.”
Case Details
Name: Rahul v. State of Haryana
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 262 of 2021- Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3449 of 2019
Date of Decision: March 3, 2021
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :
Picture Source :
