DHARNIDHAR versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2010] 8 S.C.R. 173 · Decided: 08-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 8 S.C.R. 173 
DHARNIDHAR 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 239 of 2005) 
JULY 8, 2010 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
A 
B 
ss. 302134 and 3021149 - Murders of father and son at c 
two different places - Conviction by trial court affirmed by High 
Court - HELD: Courts below rightly convicted and sentenced 
four accused u/s 302134 for murder of the son - Thereafter 
as all the four accused went to kill the father and there the fifth 
accused joined them and took active part in committing the 0 
second murder, courts below rightly convicted and sentenced 
all the five accused u/s 3021149. 
ss. 34 and 149 -
Ingredients and applicability of -
Explained. 
Criminal Law: 
Motive - Relevance of - Explained. 
Evidence: 
Interested witness - Connotation of - Explained - HELD: 
E 
F 
The family members of the two deceased being present at the 
respective places of occurrence and having seen the 
incidents of murders of their brother and father, it was but 
natural for the prosecution to produce them as the main eye-
G 
witnesses - Their evidence stands corroborated by medical 
evidence - Both the courts below rightly believed them -
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302134 and 3021149. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
173 
H 
174 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
s.313 - Power of court to examine accused- Object of-
Explained - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302134 and 3021149. 
The five appellants were prosecuted for murders of 
the brother and the father of the complainant (PW-1 ). The 
8 prosecution case was that four of the accused (except 
accused DD) armed with guns and spear reached the 
place where 'BS', the brother of PW-1, had gone to 
sharpen his gandasa. Accused 'SD' inflicted a spear blow 
on the shoulder of 'BS' and thereafter the remaining three 
C accused fired at him with their respective guns, resulting 
in his death at the spot. Then the four accused went to 
the fie las where 'PL', the father of PW-1 was irrigating his 
bajra crop. There the accused 'DD' also joined them. 
Three of the accused who were armed with guns fired at 
'PL', who fell down. Accused 'DD' cut the neck of 'PL' with 
D a 'Kulhadi'. The trial court convicted four accused, inter 
ala, u/s 302/34 IPC as regards the murder of 'BS' and all 
the five accused, inter a/ia, u/s 302/149 for the murder of 
'PL'. Their appeals were dismissed by the High Court. 
E 
It was contended for the appellants that (i) the alleged 
eyewitnesses being the family members, were interested 
witnesses and, as such, the conviction based on their 
evidence was liable to be set aside; (ii) the prosecution 
failed to prove motive for the crime; (iii) the evidence of 
F the doctor (PW-6) who conducted the autopsies and that 
of PW-2 who claimed to have been present at both the 
places of occurrences, raised serious doubts and, 
therefore, the courts below should have held that the 
prosecution failed to prove its case beyond doubt; and 
G (iv) that both the courts below fell in error of law in 
convicting accused 'RS', 'BO' and 'SD' with the aid of s.34 
IPC and accused 'DD' with the aid of s.149 IPC, as in the 
facts and circumstances of the case, ingredients of the 
respective provisions were not satisfied by the 
H prosecution. 
DHARNIDHAR v. STATE OF U.P. 
175 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1. An interested witness is one who is 
interested in securing the conviction of a person out of 
vengeance or enmity or due to disputes, and deposes 
before the court only with that intention and not to further 
8 
the cause of justice. The law relating to appreciation of 
evidence of an interested witness is well settled, 
according to which, the version of an interested witness 
cannot be thrown over-board, but has to be examined 
carejully before accepting the same. In the light of the 
judgments, it is clear that the statements of the alleged 
C 
interested witnesses can be safely relied upon by the 
court in support of the prosecution story. But this needs 
to be done with care and to ensure that the administration 
of criminal justice is not undermined by the persons, who 
are closely related to the deceased. When their D 
statements find corroboration by other witnesses, expert 
evidence and the circumstances of the case clearly 
depict completion of the chain of evidence pointing out 
to the guilt of the accused, then there is no reason why 
the statement of so called 'interested w:tnesses' canno~ E 
be relied upon 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.