Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to the murder of Durga on 27.3.1982 at about 3.10 p.m. The prosecution case was that the deceased, along with Mullu (PW-1) and Phoola (PW-2), had gone to cut crops in the morning. At noon, the accused persons - Malkhan, Kallu (appellant), and Mata Din - came armed with axe and sickle and started cutting crops. When Durga objected, Malkhan struck him on the neck with an axe, and all three accused inflicted blows, causing his death. The motive was a property dispute over ancestral land. The trial court convicted all three under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction. The appellant, Kallu, appealed to the Supreme Court. The appellant's counsel argued that there were reasons for false implication due to the property dispute, that PW-2 was an interested witness being cousin sister of both PW-1 and Malkhan, and that she had a grudge because Malkhan had testified against her brother in a theft case. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 was credible and corroborated by the post-mortem report. The court held that the mere fact that a witness is interested does not make her testimony unreliable if it inspires confidence. The concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were not perverse. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on testimony of interested witnesses - The appellant was convicted for murder of Durga based on evidence of PW-1 (son of deceased) and PW-2 (cousin sister of PW-1 and accused). The court held that the testimony of interested witnesses cannot be discarded solely on ground of interest; it must be scrutinized with care. In this case, the evidence was found credible and corroborated by medical evidence (post-mortem report). The motive of property dispute was established. The concurrent findings of fact by trial court and High Court were not perverse, hence no interference warranted. (Paras 1-6) B) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Interested Witness - Credibility - The court examined the argument that PW-2 was an interested witness due to relationship and prior enmity. However, the court found that her testimony was consistent and corroborated by other evidence. The mere fact that a witness is related to the complainant does not render her testimony unreliable if it inspires confidence. (Paras 5-6) C) Criminal Law - Motive - Property Dispute - Section 302 IPC - The prosecution established that the murder was due to a property dispute over ancestral land. The court noted that motive, though not essential, strengthens the prosecution case. The appellant's claim of false implication due to property dispute was not accepted as the evidence clearly pointed to his involvement. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC based on the testimony of interested witnesses is sustainable.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC.
Law Points
- Conviction under Section 302 IPC can be based on testimony of interested witnesses if found credible and corroborated by medical evidence
- Motive of property dispute is relevant but not essential for conviction
- Appellate court should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless perverse
