SMT. SHAMIM versus STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)

Citation: [2018] 11 S.C.R. 677 · Decided: 19-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
677
SMT. SHAMIM
v.
STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)
(Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2018)
SEPTEMBER 19, 2018
[RANJAN GOGOI, NAVIN SINHA AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302/307/34 – Appellant-accused
strongly opposed the marriage between her daughter (PW-4) and
PW-1 – Brother and mother of PW-1 shot dead on the first floor of
their house – Appellant’s acquittal reversed by High Court –
Propriety of – Held: PW-4 is the daughter of the appellant – PW-4
deposed that soon after the occurrence, the appellant told her that
she got the brother and mother of PW-1 killed because PW-4 did
not listen to her and that PW-1 would be killed next– In a criminal
trial, normally the evidence of the wife, husband, son or daughter
of the deceased, is given great weightage on the principle that there
is no reason for them not to speak the truth and shield the real
culprit – There is no reason why the same principle cannot be applied
when such a witness deposes against a closely related accused –
According to normal human conduct, a witness would tend to shield
and protect a closely related accused– It would require great
conviction and moral strength for a daughter to depose against her
own mother who is an accused – PW-4’s statement can be considered
as a corroborative evidence being a voluntary extra judicial
confession, considering the nature of relationship between the
witness and the appellant – PW-3 (brother of PW-1)  saw the
appellant and the other accused with blood stained clothes –A blood
stained lock and key and Chunni of the appellant was also recovered
on confession of the appellant – PW-2 (sister of PW-1) was also a
reliable witness to the occurrence – No merit in the appeal– However,
High Court’s direction denying the benefit of remission to the
appellant till she completes twenty-five years of custody is
unsustainable– Impugned judgment set aside to that extent only–
Sentencing.
[2018] 11  S.C.R. 677
677
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
678
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
Evidence – Injured witness – Appreciation of – Discussed.
Criminal Trial – Witness – Minor contradictions in evidence
of – Effect of– Discussed.
Criminal Trial – Duty of a Judge – Discussed.
Allowing the appeal to an extent, the Court
HELD: 1.1  In a criminal trial, normally the evidence of the
wife, husband, son or daughter of the deceased, is given great
weightage on the principle that there is no reason for them not to
speak the truth and shield the real culprit. There is no reason
why the same principle cannot be applied when such a witness
deposes against a closely related accused. According to normal
human behavior and conduct, a witness would tend to shield and
protect a closely related accused. It would require great courage
of conviction and moral strength for a daughter to depose against
her own mother who is an accused. There is no reason why the
same reverse weightage shall not be given to the credibility of
such a witness. PW-4 is the daughter of the appellant. She deposed
that two days prior to the occurrence, the appellant had threatened
the witness to leave PW-1 else she would get his family members
killed. Soon after the occurrence, having reached the house of
her in-laws, PW-4 stepped out on the verandah. The appellant
who was standing on her own verandah told her that she got the
deceased killed because the witness did not listen to her and
that her husband would be killed next. In cross-examination she
reiterated the same. The statement can be considered as a
corroborative evidence being a voluntary extra judicial confession,
considering the nature of relationship between the witness and
the appellant. PW-3 (brother of PW-1) deposed that while
returning home at about 10.30 PM, he saw the appellant and the
other accused coming out of his house with blood stained clothes
and they proceeded towards the house of the appellant. A little
later the other accused came out from the house of the appellant
and went away towards the lane. The witness reiterated the same
in his cross examination. A blood stained lock and key has also
been recovered on confession of the appellant.  [Paras 9, 10]
[682-G-H; 683-A-E]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
679
1.2 PW-2 (sister of PW-1) was an injured witness whose
throat was slit in the occurrence. The evidence of an injured
witness carries great weight as it is presumed that having been a
victim of the same occurrence, the witness was speaking the truth.
Notwithstanding the grueling nature of her cross examination,
she wi

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