LexSHEO SHANKAR SINGH versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011) 4 S.C.R. 312 SHEO SHANKAR SINGH V. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 791-792 of 2005) FEBRUARY 15, 2011 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 rlw s.34 - Murder - Person shot down on road, while he was riding pillion seat of C motorcycle driven by PW 16 - Appellant S allegedly drove his motorcycle to the left of PW16's motorcycle, while appellant U, riding pillion, fired gun shots at the deceased from close range - Allegation that accused-appellants were part of the coal mafia and deceased, a sitting member of the D State Legislative Assembly, incurred their wrath as he opposed their activities - Eye-witness account of PW16 and PW6 - Trial Court convicted the appellants and sentenced them to life imprisonment - High Court confirmed the conviction and also enhanced the sentence of life E imprisonment to sentence of death - On appeal, held: The deceased was perceived by the appellants as a hurdle in their activities - The depositions of all the witnesses satisfactorily prove that the appellants were seen hanging around the place of occurrence on the incident date and were seen together F riding a motorcycle proximate in point of time when the deceased was gunned down - Seizure evidence corroborated the prosecution version - Further corroboration from medical evidence - The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt , the sequence of events underlying the charge of murder levelled against the appellants - Conviction upheld but G sentence modified to life imprisonment instead of death sentence. H 312 ',, • SHEO SHANKAR SINGH v. STATE OF JHA,RKHAND 313 &ANR. Criminal Trial: A Motive - Importance of proof of motive - Distinction between cases where prosecution relies upon circumstanttal evidence and where it relies upon the testimony of eye witnesses - Held: In the former category of cases, proof of motive itself constitutes a link in the chain of circumstances 8 upon which the prosecution may rely - Proof of motive, however, recedes into the background in cases where the prosecution relies upon an eye-witness account' of the occurrence - That is because if the court, upon a proper appraisal of the deposition of the eye~witnesses, comes to the G conclusion that the version given by them· is credible, absence of evidence to prove the· motive is rendered inconsequential - Conversely, even if prosecution succeeds in estaqlishing a strong motive for the commission of the offence, bf!t the evidence of the eye-witnesses is found D unreliable or unworthy of credit, existence of a motive does not by itself provide a sa/e ,basis for convicting, the accus.eq - That does not, however, mean that proof of motive even in a case which rests on an eye-witness account does not l~nd strength to the prosecution case or fortify the court in its E ultimate conclusion ::... Proof of motive in such a situation certainly helps the prosecution and supports t~e eye- witnesse.s - The,Jnstant case rests upon the depositio(I of the eyewitnesses, hence, absence of motive would not by itself make any material difference, but if a motive is prover;! it wo.uid F lend support to the prosecution version - The prosecution herein established the motive to fortify its charge against the accused-appellants. , , Witness - Examination of - Delay in examination - Effect - Held: Mere delay in examination of a particular G witness does not, as a rule of uniVersai application, render the prosecution case suspect - In a case where the investigating officer has reasons to b,elieve that a particulqr witness is an eye-witness to the) occurrence but,'he does .not. exa,rgine ':him·. H' 314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 4 S.C.R. A without any possible explanation for any such omission, the delay may assume importance and require the Court to closely scrutinize and evaluate the version of the witness - But in a case where the investigating officer had no such information about any particular individual being an eye- B witness to the occurrence, mere delay in examining such a witness would not ipso facto render the testimony of the witness suspect or affect the prosecution version - In the instant case, the trial court and the High Court had accepted the explanation offered by the investigating officer for delay c - No reason to take a different view or to reject the testimony of the witness only because his statement was recorded a mont
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.