LexONKAR & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
'•;
[2012] 2 S.C.R. 1164
ONKAR & ANR.
v.
STATE OF U.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1840 of 2008)
JANUARY 18, 2012
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] .
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.3021149, 3071149 and 452 -
Common object - Armed assault by appellants and five other
C accused - Murder of PW2's uncle - Injuries to son and
daughter of PW2 - Conviction of appellants by Courts below
-
Challenged - Held: PW2 fully supported the case of
prosecution - His evidence was totally corroborated by PW3
and PW4 - Injury reports stood proved by Dr. (PW1) and
o Dr. (PIN?) in the court and they corroborated the prosecution
version - FIR was lodged most promptly within a period of 3
hours of the incident though the police station was at a
distance of 3 miles from the place of occurrence -
The
appellants were specifically named - The other co-accused
E who were not the residents of the village where the offence was
committed, had been duly identified in Test Identification
Parade as well as in court by all the three eye-witnesses -
Witnesses deposed that not a single article was looted nor any
attempt had be~n made to commit dacoity, rather it was
F specifically stated that all the assailants/miscreants declared
that no one would be left alive and had been exhorting one
another to eliminate all- All the assailants came together and
participated in the crime - The offence was committed at mid-
night - From a collective reading of the entire evidence, ·
inference can safely be drawn that the assailants had an object
G to commit murder of persons on the victims' side and they
participated in the crime - Graveness of charges against the
accused-appellants that they in concert with other accused to
achieve a common object entered into the house of the PW21
H
1164
ONKAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P.
1165
complainant stood proved -
Conviction of appellants A
accordingly upheld.
Evidence - Witnesses ~ Related witnesses - Held:
Evidence of closely related witnesses is required to be
carefully scrutinised and appreciated - In· case, the evidence
8
has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy it ca[7
be relied upon.
According to the prosecution, the two appellants and
five other accused in concert with each other and to
c:tehieve a common object entered into the house of the
C
PW2, the appellants armed with country-made pistols and
the other accused armed with lathi, bhala etc. and caused
·the death of PW2's uncle ('0') and injuries to PW2's
daughter ('T') and son ('C'). The trial court convicted all
the accused. The appellants were convicted under D
Section 302/149; 3071149 and Section 452 IPC and
sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the High
Court upheld ·the conviction and maintained the
sentence.
The appellants challenged their conviction before
E
this Court inter alia on grounds that only close relatives
of the deceased '0' were examined and that in the facts
and circumstance~ of the case, the provisions of Section
149 IPC were not attracted and the prosecution failed to
F
prove that there was unlawful assembly constituted for
the purpose of executing a common object.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
.
.
. .
.
HELD:1. The prosecution examined 3 eye-witnesses.
G
· According to PW.2 (complainant), the victims' side had
·earlier filed criminal .cases against some of the accused
. persons. In one case,. they had been convicted and in
another case they had been acquitted. In so far as this
incident is .concerned, PW.2 has fully supported the case
H
1166
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 2 S.C.R.
A of the prosecution. This witness deposed that accused
Bira was having a gun and the appellants were having
country made pistols and the other accused were armed
with lathi and ballom etc. In order to save himself from
the assailants, PW.2 jumped in the house of his other
8 uncle 'B' while 'O' climbed down from the roof. The
a_ccused had a scuffle with 'O' who suffered a gun shot
injury. The accused al~o tried to break the door of the
room of '0' and when the door was not broken, they fired
shot at the door and bullets from the ventilatior of the
C house due to which 'C' and 'T' suffered fire injuries. In
this incident, accused 'MS' also got injured. His evidence
is totally corroborated by PW.3 and PW.4. [Para 7) (1176-
D-G].
2. It is a settled legal proposition that evidence of
D closely related witnesses is required to be carefully
scrutinised and appreciExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.