Summary
Four members of a family in Muradnagar were killed in their beds in August 2007 and a daughter grievously injured; the deceased's brother, a neighbour and two others were convicted under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to death, which the Allahabad High Court commuted to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court dismissed the accused's appeals and the State's appeals for restoration of the death sentence: the injured daughter was a wholly reliable eyewitness whose initial silence before assailants who were close relatives present at the scene was wise and explained, the use of a dog squad was consistent with the names not yet being disclosed, non-examination of her sister and grandfather and the absence of a Section 164 statement did not weaken the case, Ravi was in fact named in her police statement, and the High Court gave sound reasons for commutation.
Issues
- Whether the conviction for the murder of four persons could rest on the testimony of a sole injured eyewitness related to the deceased who did not name the assailants to the villagers or at the hospital, and whether the death sentence commuted by the High Court should be restored.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860The injured witness saw the four accused assaulting her parents with swords and a gandasa, heard one of them direct that no one be left alive, and herself suffered amputated fingers and cuts to the face and neck; her account was corroborated by the medical evidence and recoveries, establishing the murders and the attempt on her life by the unlawful assembly. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 8, 18, 25)
- Sections 161 and 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The witness's statement to the police, given as soon as the investigating officer reached the hospital, fully supported her testimony and named Ravi at two places; whether to record a statement under Section 164 was for the investigating officer, and its absence has no bearing on her credibility. (¶¶ 19, 22, 23)
Held
- The daughters wisely did not disclose the names to the assailants who, as close relatives and neighbours, gathered at the scene and took them to hospital, since to do so would have endangered their lives; they gave the true sequence to the investigating officer at the first opportunity, and the dog squad was pressed into service because the names had not then been disclosed. Nothing elicited in cross-examination weakened the injured witness, and it is the quality of witnesses, not their number, that matters, so non-examination of the other daughter and grandfather is immaterial. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21)
- The discrepancies pointed out by the amicus are minor and do not affect the findings; the High Court gave sound and cogent reasons for commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment, so the State's appeals for enhancement also fail. (¶¶ 24, 25)
Result
Criminal Appeal Nos. 599 and 600 of 2013 and 337 of 2014 by the accused dismissed, Criminal Appeal No. 598 of 2013 having abated on the appellant's death; State's Criminal Appeal Nos. 745-748 of 2015 for enhancement of sentence dismissed; the appellants to serve out their life sentences; pending applications disposed of.