RAHUL versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2021] 2 S.C.R. 499 · Decided: 03-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Leave Granted & Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
499
RAHUL
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(CRIMINAL APPEAL No.262 of 2021)
MARCH 03, 2021
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w. s.34 – Arms Act, 1959
– s.25(1B)(a) – Prosecution case was that the appellant-accused
suspected that his wife was in illicit relation with the victim-deceased
– The appellant informed his father-in-law and his brother-in-law
about the same and all three of them decided to eliminate the victim-
deceased – All three of them had taken victim-deceased to a hill
and fired on him and thereafter thrown him in a pit – A telephonic
message regarding the body was received in Police station – After
receiving the said information, the police officials reached the spot
– The inspecting officers found marks of dragging of the deceased
on the kacha road which was going towards the hill and on checking
of the dead body, they also found two fire-arm shots on both sides
of waist along with other injuries – FIR was registered u/s. 302 r/w.
s.34 IPC and s.25 of the Arms Act – News item along with a
photograph of the deceased was published for identification of the
body – The body was identified by PW-12-mother of deceased and
PW-3-brother of deceased – After recording their statements and
collecting necessary evidence, the appellant and his father-in-law
were arrested – The other accused brother-in-law of appellant
absconded – Both PW-3 and PW-12 stated that victim was taken by
the appellant and his brother-in-law from a bus stop – Further, on
basis of the disclosure statement of the appellant, a country made
pistol and two live cartridges were recovered from the house of his
bua-DW-1 – The Trial Court found both appellant and his father-
in-law guilty for offence u/s. 302 r/w. s.34 and appellant also guilty
u/s.25 of the Arms Act – The High Court confirmed the conviction
of appellant and acquitted his father-in-law – Aggrieved, the
appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court – Held: There
is no reason to disbelief the recovery of weapon from the residence
of DW-1 – Further, as per the FSL report, the country made pistol
.315 bore used by the appellant was found in working order and
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 499
499
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
500
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
both the fired cartridges recovered from the spot and fired bullet
taken out from the body of the deceased were found fired from the
country made pistol recovered at the instance of appellant-accused
– PW-5-doctor had deposed that the cause of death was because of
fire-arm injuries and he had clearly stated that the fired bullet which
was marked as Ex.P1 was same which was taken out from the body
of the deceased – As far as testimony of PW-3 and PW-12 is
concerned, merely because they are related, by itself is no ground,
to reject their testimony – A close relative who is natural witness
cannot be regarded as an interested witness – It is fairly well settled
proposition that even the evidence of interested person can also be
considered provided such evidence is corroborated by other
evidence on record – There is a complete chain of evidence which
would lead to irresistable conclusion that the appellant-accused
has committed the offence.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Although it is the contention of the appellant that
as PW-3 and PW-12 are family members/close relations of the
deceased, as such, their testimony is to be discarded, but the
same cannot be accepted. Merely because PW-3 and PW-12 are
related, by itself is no ground, to reject their testimony. Further,
a close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as an
interested witness. It is fairly well settled proposition that even
the evidence of interested person can also be considered
provided such evidence is corroborated by other evidence on
record. [Para 17][515-C-E]
2. It is clear from the deposition of PW-5 (doctor) and the
post mortem report that, injuries were caused over the body of
the deceased with a fire-arm and the bullet was found embedded
in the body. It is also clearly stated that death was due to fire-arm
injuries and was ante mortem in nature. He has clearly stated
that the fired bullet which was marked as Ex.P1 was the same
which was taken out from the body of the deceased. [Para 18][516-
E-F]
3. If the oral evidence on record coupled with the
documentary evidence is closely scrutinized, this Court is of the
considered view that there is a complete chain of evidence which
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
501
would lead to

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