LEHNA versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 377 · Decided: 22-01-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
1 
LEHN A 
A 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
JANUARY 22, 2002 
[M.B. SHAH, B.N. AGRAWAL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 : 
Section 302-Conviction based on evidence of injured eye witnesses-
Death sentence awarded by trial court--Confirmed by High Court-On appeal, C 
conviction upheld-However no ei•idence of diabolic planning to commit the 
crime though the act was cruel-On being deprived of his livelihood on the 
land being taken awcry accused exhibited his resentment-Frequency of quarrels 
indicate lack of sinister planning to commit murder-Hence death sentence 
not proper--Sentence modified to life imprisonment. 
D 
Section 324-Conviction under-Evidence of injured eye-witnesses-
Held, reliable--Conviction upheld in view thereof 
Section 458-Conviction under-Held since no finding recorded by the 
courts below as to existence of ingredients of the offence, conviction set aside. 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 354(3), 360 and 361-
Punishment for murder-Determinative factors-Personality of the offender 
as revealed by his character, antecedents and other circumstances and 
tractability of the offender to reform--Criminal Procedure Code, 1898-Section 
367(5)-Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1955. 
Criminal Trial 
Related witnesses-Reliability of-Relationship is not a factor to affect 
credibility of a witness. 
E 
F 
Injuries on accused-Effect of on prosecution case-Held, per se does G 
not affect prosecution version-But when the injuries are not explained and 
are of series nature, they assume importance. 
Sentencing : 
'Just desert '-Principle of-Discussed-Proportionality of punishment H 
377 
378 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] I S.C.R. 
A to crime-Excessive punishment is punishment without guilt. 
The appellant-accused was charged for the offences under Sections 
302, 458 and 324 IPC. The prosecution case was that due to dispute 
between the accused and the other members of his family over ancestral 
land, he killed his mother, brother and sister-in-law and caused injuries 
B to his father (PW6) and his nephew (PW7). 
During trial, the evidence was that 2-3 days before the occurrence, 
there was bitter quarrel and there used to be constant quarrel between 
accused and his family members over the land; and that deceased brother 
c 
of accused and PW6 had many enemies because of their questionable 
credentials, and that the injuries on the accused were of serious nature as 
per medical evidence. Trial Court relying on the evidence of PWs 6 and 
7, the injured eye witnesses, held the accused guilty of offences punishable 
under Sections 302, •458 and 324 IPC and sentenced him to death and 
imprisonment for 4 years and 6 years respectively. High Court confirmed 
D the order of the Trial Court. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant-accused contended that the 
prosecution case was not reliable because tbe eye witnesses could not be 
relied upon as they were close relatives and consequently were partisan 
witnesses and their presence on the spot of incident was suspicious; and 
E that the real assailants could be the enemies of the deceased brother and 
PW6; and that death sentence was not warranted as the case did not fall 
in the category of "rarest of the rare case"; and that conviction under 
Section 458 IPC was unjustified since the presence of ingredients of the 
offence were not discussed by the courts below. 
F 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I.I. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a 
witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual 
culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has 
G to be laid if plea of false implication is made_ In such cases, Court has to 
adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is 
cogent and credible. It cannot be said that the witness being a close relative 
is a partisan witness and should not be relied upon. 1383-C; HI 
Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, AIR~l 953) SC 364; Guli 
H Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1974) SC 276; Vadivelu Thevar 
t 
~ 
• 
.. 
~ 
<y· _.., 
LEHNA v. STATE OF HARYANA 
379 
? 
v. The State of Madras, AIR (1957) SC 614; Masa/ti v. The State of Uttar A 
9 
Pradesh. AIR (1965) SC 202 and State of Purijab v. Jagir Singh Baljit Singh 
and Karam Singh, AIR (1973) SC 2407, referred to. 
1.2. Presence of PWs 6 and 7 at the site of occurrence is natural. 
They were inmates of the house, and therefore no suspicion as

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