LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus BITTU &ANR. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2015] 10 S.C.R. 1121 STATE OF PUNJAB v. BITTU &ANR. ETC. ETC. (CriminalAppeal Nos.548-551 of2013) DECEMBER 16, 2015 [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.) A B Penal Code, 1860- ss.1208, 302 and 201 rlw. s.34 - Prosecution under - Of five accused - Conviction by trial c court relying on testimony of the eye-witnesses (PWs 5, 6 and 7), the medical evidence and the motive as established by PW7 - High Court acquitted the accused - On appeal, held: The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - the testimonies of PWs 5 and 7 as eye- D witnesses are highly doubtful - Though the motive is established by PW7, but the motive alone cannot be sufficient to convict the accused - Even the medical evidence does not support the prosecution version - The accused are entitled to be acquitted. E Evidence - Motive- Evidentiary value of- Held: Motive alone cannot be sufficient to convict an accused, as it is not substantive evidence and is merely corroborative in nature. Dismissing the appeals, the Court F HELD: 1. PW-2 and the complainant PW-6 were eyewitnesses as per the prosecution story. But they failed to support the prosecution case as they turned hostile during the trial. In cross-examination, the G complainant did not own up any part of the previous statement which led to the FIR except that part where he had named four of the accused persons to the Police. PW-2 was the real maternal uncle of the deceased and H 1121 1122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10 S.C.R. A was alleged to have been present as an eye-witness during the incident, as per the FIR. It is unnatural for him not to have come to the rescue of his nephew even when he had identified him as the victim. Thus, the two main eye-witnesses turned hostile and did not support the B case of the prosecution. [Para 9] [1126-G; 1127-C-E] 2. The statements of PW-5 lead to an inference that his presence was doubtful. PW-5 was the real maternal uncle of the deceased and on seeing the deceased being C thrown by the accused, he did not even bother to check whether the deceased was dead or alive. Also, the fact that he did not meet the police for 3 hours is a strange fact considering that his n~phew had died. [Para 10] [1128-A-B] D 3. Even if the motive is clearly established, PW-7 was admittedly the friend of the deceased. Neither he was named in the FIR nor did he care to warn the deceased or tiis family members of the conspiracy that he had E overheard. This makes his conduct highly unnatural and his presence doubtful at the place of incident. [Para 11] [1128-E-G] 4. The prosecution failed to prove its case on one F more aspect. The prosecution alleged that the medical evidence corroborates their story. But the testimony of the doctor-PW-1, who did the medical examination of the deceased, does not support this fact. [Para 12) (1128-H; 1129-A) G 5. All the circumstances lead to the inference that the prosecution has failed to bring home its case. The testimonies of PW-5 and PW-7 are highly doubtful and do not inspire confidence. Though the motive has been H well established by the testimony of PW-7, but it alone STATE OF PUNJAB v. BITTU &ANR. ETC. ETC. 1123 cannot be sufficient to convict the accused as it is not A substantive evidence and is merely corroborative in nature. Even the medical evidence fails to support the prosecution version. Thus, the conviction of the accused cannot be sustained. [Para 13] [1129-D-E] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 548-551 of2013 B From the Judgment and Order dated 11.08.2011 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in D-341, 407, 607 & 772-DB of 2004 C Jayant K. Sud, Addi. AG, Punjab, Jasleen Chahal, Asstt. AG, Punjab, Huney Khanna, Kuldip Singh for the Appellant. S. K. Bhattacharya, Niraj Bobby Paonam, Th. I. B. Singh, Satyajeet Kumar, Rajat Sharma, Subhasish Bhowmick for the D Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1.These appeals by special leave have been directed against the judgment and E order dated 11.8.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. D-341, 407, 607 and 772 of 2004 whereby the High Court allowed the criminal appeals filed by the respondents herein and acquitted them from offence punishable under Section 302, F 364, 201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred to as
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.