LexJAIKAM KHAN versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 767 [2021] 14 S.C.R. 767 767 JAIKAM KHAN v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 434-436 of 2020) DECEMBER 15, 2021 [L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI AND B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.] Criminal Law – Murder – Interested and related witnesses – Deceased had four sonsincluding the appellant--accused No.1 and P.W.1-–Six persons were murdered at different places in thehouse, witnessed by P.W.1- and P.W.2- (P.W.1-’s brother-in-law) – One was killed in angan, two in verandah, two inroom and one was killed in a room upstairs –Appellants--accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 convicted for offence punishable u/ss.302/34 IPC and sentenced to death – Accused No.2 was acquitted– On appeal, held: Both P.W.1- and P.W.2- are witnesses, who are closely related to the deceased as well as the accused No.1–These two witnesses cannot be considered to be wholly reliable to base an order of conviction solely on their testimonies –However, they cannot be said to be wholly unreliable either – They would fall in the category of ‘neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable’– A greater degree of care and caution would be required and a corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, would be necessary to pass an order of conviction – Even if the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2- is taken at its face value, the accused have murdered six deceased at different places andif their version is compared with the site-plans, it is difficult to believe that they could have also seen the accused assaulting the deceased who were killed in the rooms which are in the middle portion of the house or in the room upstairs –P.W-9 (IO) admitted that P.W.1- and P.W.2- had not told him about their hideouts and that is why it was not mentioned in the site- plan – Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt–Conviction and death sentence imposed on the accused is unsustainable in law, to be released– Appeal filed against acquittal of Accused No.2 is also sans any merit –Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302/34 – Arms Act – s.25/4– Evidence Act, 1872 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.313. A B C D E F G H 768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R. Evidence – Murder – Related witnesses – Credit worthiness of – Held: Merely because the witnesses are interested and related witnesses, it cannot be a ground to disbelieve their testimony – However, the testimony of such witnesses has to be scrutinised with due care and caution – Upon scrutiny of the evidence of such witnesses, if the Court is satisfied that the evidence is creditworthy, then there is no bar on the court in relying on such evidence. Evidence – Murder – Non-examination of independent witnesses – Held: A large number of villagers had gathered at the spot after the incident – However, none of the independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution – Since the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are interested witnesses, non- -examination of independent witnesses, though available, would make the prosecution version doubtful. Evidence – Other circumstances – Murder of six persons at different places in the house – Eye-witnesses were related witnesses and were found not wholly reliable – Other circumstances relied on by the prosecution – Discussed. Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27– Murder –Recovery of bloodstained clothes allegedly worn by the accused while committing the crime – Held: Said clothes were not recovered on the memorandum of the accused u/s.27 and as such, the said circumstance could not have been used against the accused. Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – Held: Only such information, which distinctly relates to the discovery of facts will be admissible u/s.27 – In the present case, one of the alleged recoveries is from the room where one of the deceased used to sleep –Other two recoveries are from open field, just behind the house of other deceased, i.e., the place of incident –The recoveries were made from the places, which were accessible to one and all and as such, no reliance could be placed on such recoveries. Criminal Law – Motive – Proof of – Held: In case of direct evidence and the ocular testimony of the eye-witness being found to be reliable and cogent, it will not be necessary for the prosecution to prove the motive for the crime – However, in the present case, the testimony of the eye-witnesses could not be said to be wholly reliable, thus the motive would be a relevant factor. A B C D E F G H 769 Criminal Law – Criminal Jurisprudence –Pros
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.