Summary
In 1997, five members and associates of a family were shot dead in two bursts of firing in a Hamirpur market, during a factional and political rivalry. The trial court acquitted all the accused. The Allahabad High Court reversed that and sentenced them to life. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions. The trial court had misread the evidence, speculated about timings, and rejected two injured eyewitnesses on hyper-technical grounds. It also relied on an uncorroborated fax and wrongly treated an 8x60 rifle and a .315 rifle as different weapons. Those were substantial and compelling reasons to interfere. Motive was secondary given the eyewitnesses, and a common object could form on the spot. The appeal of one accused who died abated. The informant's plea for the death penalty and his transfer petition were dismissed.
Issues
- Whether the High Court had very substantial and compelling reasons to reverse the trial court's acquittal of the accused for five murders.
- Whether the testimony of the two injured eyewitnesses was rightly rejected by the trial court on the basis of discrepancies in timing, injuries, medical records, electricity supply and a fax message.
- Whether an unlawful assembly with a common object under Section 149 IPC was proved, and whether the ballistic report was admissible under Section 293 CrPC.
Provisions considered
- Sections 141 and 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860A common object needs no prior concert and may develop on the spot; the rivalry, weapons, exhortation and two attacks within minutes and 50-75 metres established the unlawful assembly and its common object. (¶¶ 143, 144, 145, 146, 147)
- Sections 148, 302 and 307 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860The High Court's convictions and life sentences under these provisions were affirmed. (¶¶ 2.1, 2.2, 175)
- Sections 378 and 386, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The appellate court may reappreciate the evidence in an appeal against acquittal but must give due weight to the acquittal and interfere only for very substantial and compelling reasons, such as palpably wrong findings or misreading of evidence. (¶¶ 74, 75, 76, 77)
- Section 293(4)(e), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973A ballistic report emanating from the office of the Assistant Director of a forensic laboratory under his seal and signature is admissible; the trial court erred in rejecting it. (¶¶ 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171)
Held
- Sufficiency of motive has no direct bearing where the prosecution relies on credible injured eyewitnesses; the trial court's view that the motive was insufficient was an inappropriate measure, though the prosecution had shown rivalry. (¶¶ 81, 82, 86)
- The trial court's doubts about the FIR timing rested on speculative arithmetic and minor omissions in copying the tehreer; the hospital memo in fact recorded all five bodies, and the High Court rightly corrected these errors. (¶¶ 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101)
- The presence of the informant as an injured eyewitness was established: the vehicle had multiple bullet holes, his position explained his single injury, the hospital and X-ray records were genuine, and the defence's own electricity witness was equivocal. (¶¶ 109, 112, 114, 118, 121, 123, 127, 128, 129)
- The second eyewitness's firearm injury was medically corroborated, and his going home to look after the injured children while others took his brother to hospital was not unnatural, as there is no set rule of natural reaction. (¶¶ 132, 133, 134, 135)
- A fax said to come from the Superintendent of Police, introduced only through a defence witness and not part of the investigation, was uncorroborated and rejected; a defect in investigation does not by itself warrant acquittal where credible eyewitness evidence exists. (¶¶ 138, 139, 140, 141)
- An 8x60 mm rifle and a .315 bore rifle are the same calibre in different measurement systems, so the recovery from one accused was not contradicted; the arrests and recovery were consistently proved, and an expired railway pass of the main accused found at the spot was not doubtful. (¶¶ 149, 154, 156, 161, 163)
- The faction killing was not the rarest of rare case warranting death, and with the main accused's conviction affirmed no order was needed on the petition to transfer him to a jail outside the State. (¶¶ 172, 173)
Result
Criminal appeals of six accused dismissed and the Allahabad High Court's judgment affirmed; the appeal of the accused who died during pendency abated; the informant's special leave petition for enhancement to death sentence and his writ petition for transfer of the main accused to a jail outside Uttar Pradesh dismissed; no order as to costs.