P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Rakesh and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (06 Jul 2021)

Evidence of witnesses cannot be disbelieved on basis of minor contradiction

MANU/SC/0401/2021

Criminal

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.

Tags : CONVICTION   EVIDENCE   CREDIBILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved