2000 3 Crimes(SC) 69 ; 2000 CrLJ 2466 ; 2000 SCC(Cri) 1186 ; 2000 4 Supreme 725
2000(3) Crimes 69 (SC)
Supreme Court of India
(From Patna High Court)
S. Rajendra Babu & Y.K. Sabharwal, JJ.
Bahadur Naik —Appellant
versus
State of Bihar —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1079 of 1998
Decided on 11-5-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Vijay K. Mehta, Advocate (A.C.)
For the Respondent : B.B. Singh, Ms. Sunita Rani Singh, Advocates.
Act Referred :INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.34, S.302
(A) The appellant was charged and convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 302 prescribes the punishment for murder, which was applicable here as the deceased suffered multiple dagger blows leading to immediate death. Section 34 invokes the principle of common intention, as the act was committed by the appellant while the deceased was being held by two other accomplices, indicating a coordinated effort to commit the crime.
(B) The court affirmed that the non-examination of an Investigating Officer is not fatal to the prosecution if the eye-witness testimony is credible and consistent. Furthermore, it was held that pre-meditation for murder can develop on the spot and does not necessarily require long-term planning.
Facts of the case:
The appellant, acting in concert with two others, assaulted the deceased by delivering 5 to 6 dagger blows while the other two accomplices held the victim. The incident was witnessed by two eye-witnesses. The other two accomplices remained absconding and were not prosecuted. The appellant was convicted by the Court of Sessions and the sentence of life imprisonment was confirmed by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The court found the testimonies of the eye-witnesses to be credible and unshaken. It determined that there was sufficient light at the scene to identify the appellant. The court rejected the argument that the conviction should be downgraded to Section 304 IPC, noting that the severity and number of wounds indicated an intent to kill.
Issues:
Whether the non-examination of the Investigating Officer prejudiced the appellant's defense; whether the lack of prior pre-meditation warrants the conversion of a murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Ratio Decidendi:
Conviction based on reliable eye-witness testimony is sustainable even without the testimony of the Investigating Officer if no prejudice is shown. The intent to murder can be inferred from the nature of the injuries (multiple dagger blows) and the fact that pre-meditation can arise spontaneously at the scene of the crime.
Result:
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence of life imprisonment confirmed.
(A) The appellant was charged and convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 302 prescribes the punishment for murder, which was applicable here as the deceased suffered multiple dagger blows leading to immediate death. Section 34 invokes the principle of common intention, as the act was committed by the appellant while the deceased was being held by two other accomplices, indicating a coordinated effort to commit the crime.
(B) The court affirmed that the non-examination of an Investigating Officer is not fatal to the prosecution if the eye-witness testimony is credible and consistent. Furthermore, it was held that pre-meditation for murder can develop on the spot and does not necessarily require long-term planning.
Facts of the case:
The appellant, acting in concert with two others, assaulted the deceased by delivering 5 to 6 dagger blows while the other two accomplices held the victim. The incident was witnessed by two eye-witnesses. The other two accomplices remained absconding and were not prosecuted. The appellant was convicted by the Court of Sessions and the sentence of life imprisonment was confirmed by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The court found the testimonies of the eye-witnesses to be credible and unshaken. It determined that there was sufficient light at the scene to identify the appellant. The court rejected the argument that the conviction should be downgraded to Section 304 IPC, noting that the severity and number of wounds indicated an intent to kill.
Issues:
Whether the non-examination of the Investigating Officer prejudiced the appellant's defense; whether the lack of prior pre-meditation warrants the conversion of a murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Ratio Decidendi:
Conviction based on reliable eye-witness testimony is sustainable even without the testimony of the Investigating Officer if no prejudice is shown. The intent to murder can be inferred from the nature of the injuries (multiple dagger blows) and the fact that pre-meditation can arise spontaneously at the scene of the crime.
Result:
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence of life imprisonment confirmed.
Judgment
Y.K. Sabharwal J.—The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. by Court of Sessions and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The conviction and sentence has been confirmed by the High Court in appeal. The conviction is based mainly on the testimony of two eye witnesses PW-2 and PW-3. The incident took place at about 9.00 P.M. on 21st March, 1992. The appellant is said to have given 5/6 dagger blows to deceased Triveni when Triveni was caught hold by Jaleshwar and Jogender. These two persons are absconding and, therefore, they could not be prosecuted. On learning that his son was being assaulted, PW-2, Dipu Gope the informant went to place of occurrence and on way deceased Triveni joined him. When they reached the place of occurrence, Triveni asked about the son of PW-2 whereupon Triveni was taken to nearby pipul tree and the aforesaid two persons caught hold of Triveni and the applicant gave dagger blows as earlier stated. Triveni succumbed to the injuries and died on the spot. The other eye witness PW-3 is the person with whom son of PW-2 was taking liquor when he was assaulted on outraging modesty of the wife of Jaleshwar. PW-3 has also stated to have witnessed the incident of stabbing by the appellant.
2. The appellant has not been able to shake the credibility of the eye-witnesses. No material contradiction in the case of the prosecution has been shown to us. Under these facts and circumstances, the non-examination of the Investigating Officer as a witness is of no consequence. It has not been shown what prejudice has been caused to the appellant by such non-examination.
3. From the evidence on record it stands proved that there was sufficient light at the place of occurrence to identify the appellant. We are also unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the conviction deserves to be converted to be one under Section 304 I.P.C. either Part-I or Part-II thereof because there was no pre-meditation. The pre-meditation can develop on the spot as well. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, the deceased was given 5/6 dagger blows. In view of the evidence on record the contention for converting the sentence as aforesaid cannot be accepted.
4. We find no infirmity in the impugned judgment. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
(C.R.) Appeal dismissed.