LexMAHESH CHANDER AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
l. -' MAHESH CHANDER AND ANOTHER v. STAIB OF DELHI APRIL 3, 1991 A [S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.] 13 Constitution of India: Article 136---Court's power to interfere with concurrent findings of fact-Scope of. Indian Penal Code, 1860: S. 302 r/w s. 34-Death due to homici- dal violence-Murder trial-Evidence-Place of occurrence and cause of C death not disputed-Motive for crime brought out-Serious doubts in trustworthiness and truthfulness of evidence of eye-witnesses and suspi- cion in veracity of prosecution case overlooked by courts below- Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded by Sessions Court-Findings affirmed and sentence maintained by High Court -Legality and correctness of. D Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: S. 154-F.l.R.-Delay in registration~Name of one of the accused known to the witness and presence of main eye-witness at the scene not mentioned-Effect of. Indian Evidence Act, 1872: S. 9-1dentification parade-Accu- E sed already seen by witness in police station-Refusal by accused to participate-Presence of accused at the place of occurrence not proved- whether adverse inference could be drawn. Appellants in Criminal Appeals nos. 628 and 432 of 1979 were accused nos. 1 and 2 respectively in the trial court. Deceased was F brother-in-Jaw (sister's husband) of accused no. I-At the time of mar- riage of P_W. 4 (sister of accused no. 1) with the deceased, her Cather- in-law presented her gold ornaments which, while her visit to her parents' house, were retained Iiy her father and brother, accused no. I, who rerused to return the same. Despite persistent demand by her husband she could not be able to bring them back and on being rebuked G by her husband she went to her parents' house on 25.5.1975 to bring the same. On the same day the deceased being left alone in the house, brought Km. Sunita (P. W. 11), daughter of his brother (PW-5) for house-hold job. In the intervening night between 27/28-5-1975 accused no. I with H ' 52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1991] 2 S.C.R. A his friend accused no. 2 stayed at the house of the deceased. They took their bed in the outer court-yard by the side of the deceased while PW-11 slept in the adjoining verandah. At about 3.15 a.m. PW·ll woke ~ up and found accused no. 2 sitting over the deceased and secm·ing him firmly. Accused no. 1 gave a blow with the wooden pestle (Moosal) on the head of the deceased, who shouted "MAR DIY A, MAR DIY A, B BACHAO, BACHAO" (being killed being killed, save me, save me.) On being questioned by PW-11, the two accused threatened her, and while accused no. 2 was dragging the deceased inside the house and accused no. 1 kept on hitting him, PW-11 escaped from the scene and ;. went to her father's house to inform him. On the way she met PW-3, but she was so dumb-sticken that she could not reply to his queries. On ,. c hearing the voice of deceased, "MAR DIYA, BACHAO, BACHAO", at 3.30 a.m. PW-1, a neighbour of the deceased and who bad earlier seen both the accns_ed lying on different cots In the court-yard, came from the npstairs of his terrace and saw accused no. 2 dragging the deceased and accused no. 1 beating him. At that time PW·3 also reached there. Both PWs I and 3 shouted at the accused but on being r D threatened by the latter, the. witnesses stepped back. PW-5, on being J. informed by PW-11, reached the scene with PWs I, 3 and 6, and saw from a distance of 8-10 paces running the accused from there. All the four witnesses entered the house and found the deceased dead. PWs 1 and 6 went to the police post concerned where PW-1 gave report before the Sub-Inspector incharge, PW-17, who endorsed the same to the main E police station for registration of a case. PW-17 accompanied by PWs 1 and 3, went to the place of occurrence, recorded statements of PWs 3, 5 and 6 and conducted the investigation. On 29.5.1975 he arrested both ).. the accused. An identification parade was arranged but accused no. 2 refused to participate on the groilnd that his face was never muffled and that the prosecution witnesses had seen him in the police station. The F investigation completed in both the accused being charged for offence punishable under s. 302 read withs. 34, I.P.C. for committing murder of the deceased. Accepting the prosecution case, the Sessions Court convicted both the accused of the offence charged and sentenced them to undergo ) G imprisonment fo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.