Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Supreme Court Evidence of witnesses cannot be disbelieved on basis of minor contradiction MANU/SC/0401/2021 - (06 Jul 2021) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Rakesh and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">Present appeal is filed against judgment and order passed by the High Court, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the Appellants – original accused challenging their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), passed by the trial Court. 
In instant case, PW1 and PW2 are trustworthy and reliable witnesses. Their presence at the time of incident with the deceased has been established and proved by the prosecution. The presence of PW1 and even PW2 at the time of incident is natural. PW1 is the son of the deceased who accompanied the deceased to attend the court. Similarly, PW2 also was required to attend the court and therefore he reached the court and thereafter he saw the incident. Both the witnesses have been fully and thoroughly cross-examined. There may be some minor contradictions, however, as held by this Court in catena of decisions, minor contradictions which do not go to the root of the matter and/or such contradictions are not material contradictions, the evidence of witnesses cannot be brushed aside and/or disbelieved. 
In the present case, the prosecution has been successful in proving the motive. There was a prior long-time enmity between the deceased and the accused – A1. Even the deceased was also facing trial for the offence under Section 307 IPC at the instance of A1. The defence has failed to prove any circumstances by which it can be said that they are falsely implicated in the case. 
No interference of this Court is called for. The learned trial Court and the High Court have rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. So far as A1 is concerned, there is direct evidence against him using the gun and shooting the deceased. Therefore, even he can be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, without the aid of Section 34 of IPC. Both the courts below have rightly convicted A1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and other accused – A2 and A3 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, with the aid of Section 34 of IPC. Appeal dismissed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Conviction, Evidence, Credibility</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>