LexKURATIKAR SUDHAKAR versus STATE OF AN DH RA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 14 S.C.R. 737 KURATIKAR SUDHAKAR v. STATE OF AN DH RA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 404 of 2008) AUGUST 12, 2014 [DIPAK MISRA ANDS. A. BOBDE, JJ.] A B Pena/Code, 1860-s.302-Murder-Twodeceased- Father and son hacked to death with an axe - Incident occurred at night when deceased were sleeping with their C family members - Conviction of accused-appellant - Sustainability - Held: Sustainable - Evidence against the appellant was clear and unimpeachable - Hearsay of a · defence witness cannot weaken the prosecution case or cast any doubt on the depositions of the son and wife of the two· 0 deceased, who naturally woke up to the sounds of hacking by the axe and saw the accused standing between the two c-0ts of the deceased and then saw him running away- These two were most natural witnesses whose presence at the scene could not be doubted, being members of the family - Corroboration from medical evidence - Police station was E about 4 kilometers away from the place of incident and there was no evidence whether there was any road on which anybody could have travelled at night and therefore lodging the report in the morning did amount to delay- Jn any case, delay in registering FIR not fatal. F The appellant was charged u/s. 302 IPC for the murder of two persons. It was alleged that at night, while the two deceased, who were father and son, were sleeping with their family members, the appellant hacked G them with an axe. PW1 is the son of the 1st deceased while PW2 is the wife of the .znct deceased. PWs 1 and 2 stated that they woke up because of the sound of hacking made by the axe of the appellant and found the H 737 738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 14 S.C.R. A appellant holding an axe and standing between cots of the two deceased. The appellant was acquitted by the Trial Court in respect of charge u/s.302 IPC mainly on the grounds that there was a delay of 17 hours in lodging the FIR; that the Police took 9 hours in sending the F.1.R. B to the Court; that PWs 1 and 2 told D.W. 1 that some unidentified persons killed both the deceased, as narrated by D.W.-1; that the motive had not been established and further the evidence of P. W.-2 shows that . she was in sound sleep, and therefore, it was not c possible for that witness and another to get up and see the appellant running away in the light of a solitary lamp in the street and both P.Ws. 1 and 2 could not have seen the accused, and that too from the back. In appeal filed by the State, the High Court found the appellant guilty of o the offence u/s. 302 IPC and accordin!J.IY convicted and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. The High Court held that PWs1 and 2 were witnesses of truth and rejected the contention that as motive could not be discovered, the appellant was entitled for acquittal. E Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD:1. ·There is clear and unimpeachable evidence on the basis of which the appellant/accused must be held guilty for the murder of the two deceased on the night intervening 13/14-06-2000 u/s. 302 IPC. F [Para 10][743-0-E] 2. The counsel for the appellant heavily relied on the statement of D.W. 1, that he was told by P.Ws. 1 and 2 that an unidentifie'd assailant had attacked the deceased. G One fails to see how hearsay of a defence witness could weaken the prosecution case or cast any doubt on the depositions of the son and. wife of the two deceased, who naturally woke up to the sounds of hacking by the axe and saw the accused standing between the two cots H I~ KURATIKAR SUDHAKAR v. STATE OF ANDHRA 739 PRADESH of the deceased and then saw him running away. These A two are most natural witnesses whose presence at the scene cannot be doubted, being members of the family. [Para 7][7 42-C-F] 3. There is nothing to discredit the said two witnesses. PW1 has clearly stated that he got up on B hearing the sounds of hacking by the accused with an axe and saw the accused ,standing between the two cots of the deceased with an axe in his hand. Further, when he tried to apprehend the accused he ran away along with the axe, which he then threw on the roadside. The C deposition of P.W. 2 is similar and identical in material particulars. Depositions of P.Ws 1 and 2 r~mained unshaken in the prosecution examination. The medical evidence, from the deposition of P.W. 7 [Dr.], clearly establishes that the injuries on the two deceased might D have been caused by the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.