AJAI ALIAS AJJU ETC. ETC versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 930 · Decided: 15-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
930
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
   [2023] 3 S.C.R. 930
930
AJAI ALIAS AJJU ETC. ETC.
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal Nos.598-600 of 2013)
FEBRUARY 15, 2023
[B. R. GAVAI AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302/149, 307 – Arms Act, 1959 –
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 161, 164 – The case of
prosecution was that the accused persons, entered into the house
of the PW-1 and her sister and had caused the death of the four of
their family members – In the course of committing the offence, the
accused persons also inflicted the injuries upon the PW-1 and her
sister – Presuming them to be dead, the accused persons left the
house – Thereafter, the PW-1 and her sister came out of the house
shouting and the villagers and the accused persons reached but
since they were frightened of the accused persons, they both
deliberately concealed the names of the accused persons and upon
being asked by the accused persons that whether they have seen
someone, they told them that they haven’t seen anyone – After that
the names of the accused persons were disclosed to the investigating
officer by PW-1 and thereafter the investigation were carried out
and the charge-sheet were filed against the accused persons – The
trial court, taking into consideration the evidence adduced convicted
the accused persons of the death sentence along with other lesser
punishments for other offences – Aggrieved by it, the accused
persons approached the High Court – High Court affirmed the
sentence imposed by the trial court but commuted the death penalty
to life imprisonment – On appeal, held: PW-1 is an injured witness
and there is no reason why PW-1 would make false implication and
allow the real assailants to go scot-free – Also, a perusal of her
testimony shows that she has fully supported the prosecution story
as narrated by her in her statement under section 161 CrPC and
even during cross-examination nothing was elicited from her which
in any way may weaken or demolish her testimony and therefore,
she was a fully reliable witness and has stated the things in natural
course – Non-disclosure of the name of the accused persons by the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
931
PW-1 was a wise step on her part as they were close relatives of her
and such non-disclosure was done for protecting her own life.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. PW-1 is an injured witness. Her injuries have
not been challenged. There is no reason why PW-1 would make
false implication and allow the real assailants to go scot-free. A
perusal of her testimony shows that she has fully supported the
prosecution story as narrated by her in her statement under
section 161 CrPC. Even during cross-examination nothing has
been elicited from her which in any way may weaken or demolish
her testimony. She was a fully reliable witness and has stated the
things in natural course. [Para 18][939-E-F]
2. The two daughters of the deceased ‘V’ having seen the
assailants murdering their family members and also causing injury
to one of them i.e. PW-1 being close relative rightly and wisely
did not speak out anything in their presence and allowed them to
remain in dark that she had actually seen them committing the
crime. At the first instance, when the Investigating Officer went
to the hospital to record her statement, they immediately came
out with the true sequence of events as they had happened. [Para
19][939-G-H; 940-A]
3. The pressing of the dog squad into service was also fully
justified as till that time when the dog squad was pressed into
service in the morning the names of the assailants had not been
disclosed. The dog squad had been pressed into service as per
the FIR since the names of the assailants were not known. It is
the case of the prosecution itself that the time when the FIR was
lodged and at the time when PW-1 was admitted to the hospital,
the names of the assailants had not been disclosed deliberately
and for justifiable reasons. The daughters of the deceased ‘V’
needed to protect their lives otherwise they would also had been
done to death. [Para 20][940-B-C]
4. Non-examination of sister of PW-1 and ‘H’, father of ‘V’
also has no material bearing. It is the discretion of the prosecution
to lead as much evidence as is necessary for proving the charge.
It is not the quantity of the witnesses but the quality of witnesses
which matters. PW-1 was the injured witness having received
AJAI ALIAS AJJU ETC. ETC. v. THE STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.