LexMAIN PAL AND ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
·"( A MAIN PAL AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. APRIL 5, 2004 B [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASA YAT, JJ.) "' Penal Code, 1860/ Arms Act, 1959-Section 302/Sections 25 and 27- Murder-Prosecution-Eye-witnesses-Recovery of fire arms at the behest of c accused-FIR promptly lodged-Presence of motive- Acquittal by Trial Court-Conviction by High Court after re-appreciation of evidence-On appeal, held: Conviction was justified-Acquittal granted by Trial Court was unreasoned and without critically and objectively analyzing the evidence. Criminal Trial: D Related witness-Reliability on-Held: such witness can be relied upon, \- if found to be truthful and credible after deep scrutiny. Opinionative Evidence of Doctor-Effect of-On evidence of ~ cyewitnesses-Opinionative evidence does not have binding force and hence E cannot wipe out the effect of evidence of eye-witnesses-Such evidence is liable to be sifted, analysed and tested like any other witness. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 378--Criminal appeal- Against order of acquittal-Review of evidence by Appellate Court-Scope of-Held: There is no embargo on appellate court to review the evidence- In review paramount consideration is to prevent miscarriage of justice- ,,. F Where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court )f to re-appreciate the evidence. Appellants-accused were alleged to have killed the person to whom earlier their sister had got married. The enmity of the accused with the G deceased was becallse sometime after the marriage their sister had committed suicide. The incident was seen by PW-I whose sister was later married to the deceased and PW-2, father of the deceased. After the • .. accused attacked the deceased, PW-2 ran away from the spot. A shortwhile ! later PW-I narrated the incident to PW-3, the Sarpanch. FIR was lodged by PW-I. At the behest of the appellant-accused pistols and cartridges H 768 MAIN PAL v. STATE OF HARYANA 769 were recovered. One of the cartridges matched the weapon recovered from A one of the accused. Trial Court acquitted the accused holding that prosecution was not able to establish any plausible motive; that conduct of PW-2 was unnatural; that FIR, though was lodged promptly, and evidence of PW-I were liable to be discarded because false plea relating to presence of PW- B 2 was introduced. High Court convicted the accused and held that the motive was established; evidence of PWs I and 2 could not be doubted in view of the evidence of PW3; that fire arms were recovered at tile behest of the accused; and that trial Court did not take notice of the evidence of PW- C 2 that threats were given to him by the accused persons. In appeal to this Court appellants contended that High Court had merely substituted its view in place of that expressed by trial Court, which is not permissible while considering the appeal against acquittal; that there was no evidence regarding motive; that the witnesses were related; that D the pallets and wads recovered were not sent to the Forensic La,boratory and no fire arms experts were examined; that identification of accused persons was incredible and that doctor's evidence did not support the version of PWs 1 and 2 as the same shows that the firing was done from a higher level. E Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. Since the judgment of the trial Court was practically unreasoned without any attempt to critically and objectively analyse the evidence, High Court was justified in undertaking a re-appreciation of the evidence and High Court in the case on hand has taken into account all F the relevant aspects of the case to hold the accused persons guilty. Therefore, there is no scope for interference at the instance of the appellants. (776-F-G[ 1.2. Merely because the evidence of PW-2 shows that he acted in G an unnatural manner, that per sc would not be a determinative factor to throw out the otherwise cogent prosecution evidence. High Court has come to a positive finding that PW-1 was in a position to identify the accused persons. Plea regarding non-examination of the pellets/wads by the Forensic Science Laboratory was not taken up before the Courts below. [775-B-C[ H 770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004) 3 S.CR. • A 1.3. Though PWs I and 2 were related to the deceased that does -( not in any manner affect the credibility of their evidence. When a person is shown to be the relat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.