LexSTATE OF U.P. versus KRISHNA MASTER & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 563 STATE OF U.P. v. KRISHNA MASTER & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1180 of 2004) AUGUST 3, 2010 [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302134 - Homicidal death of six persons - Conviction u/s. 302134 and imposition of death sentence by trial court - Acquittal by High Court - On appeal, C held: Evidence of two eye-witnesses as well a$ doctor, who conducted post mortem, that six persons died homicidal death on account of firearm injuries - Evidence of eye witnesses, first informant, who lost his brother; and minor child, who lost five members of his family is trustworthy and D unimpeachable - Evidence does not suffer from major contradictions and/or improvements nor noticeable embellishment made - FIR was lodged promptly .:... Sufficient electricity at the place of the incident and witnesses were able to witness the incident - Motive established by prosecution - E Oral declaration by one of the deceased before his real brother-first informant implicating the accused - Thus, order of acquittal by High Court set aside and judgment of trial court restored as regards the conviction - Accused sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life· - Evidence - Criminal Law - F Motive - Sentence/sentencing. Evidence: Oral evidence - Criteria for appreciation - Explained. Rustic witness - Appreciation of evidence - Relevant factors - Held: Evidence of such witness who is not educated and comes from a poor strata of society, should be appreciated as a whole - Rustic witness cannot be expected G 563 .H 564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R. A to have an exact sense of time and lay down with precision the chain of events - Some discrepancies are bound to take place if a witness is cross-examined at length for days together - Such discrepancies should not be blown out of proportion. 8 FIR - Purpose of - Held: Is to enable a police officer to satisfy himself as to whether commission of cognizable offences is indicated so that further investigation can be undertaken by him - FIR is to set criminal law in motion - It need not be an encyclopedia of all the facts and C circumstances on which the prosecution relies - It is never treated as a substantive piece of evidence and has a limited use. Evidence Act, 1872 - 134 - Number of witness - Requirement of - Held: s. 134 provides that no particular D number of witnesses is required for the proof of any fact - Reliance can be placed on the solitary statement of a witness if his statement is true and correct version of the prosecution case. E According to the prosecution case, respondent no. 1 was on inimical terms with 'G' and 'J' (PW 1) because of friendly relations between his daughter and the son of PW1. On the fateful day, respondent nos. 1 to 3 armed with firearms entered the house of 'G' and fired shots F indiscriminately resulting in death of 'G', his wife and three sons G' s another son (PW 2), a child aged 6 years, witnessed the entire incident. He was sleeping and after hearing the gun shots hid himself under the cot. PW 1 and his wife on seeing this ghastly incident left the place of incident. The respondents searched PW 1 and his family G members but did not find them in the house. They dragged 'B'-brother of PW 1 and shot him dead. PW 1 lodged a first information report. Investigation was carried C':Jt. The respondents were charged for commission of H STATE OF U.P. v. KRISHNA MASTER & ORS. 565 offences u/s. 30.2/34 IPC. The trial court convicted the A respondents u/s. 302/34 IPC and awarded them death sentence. The High Court acquitted the respondents and rejected the reference made by the trial court for confirmation of death sentence. Therefore, the appellant- State filed the instant appeal. B Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is firmly established by the prosecution that the respondents are the persons who had committed six C murders and, therefore, liable to be convicted u/s.302/34 IPC. [Para 18] [603-G] 2. From the evidence of two eye-witnesses as well as of PW 4, who conducted autopsy on the dead bodies of o six deceased persons, there is no manner of doubt that the six deceased persons died homicidal death on account of firearm injuries. All the murders were committed in the night of August 10, 1991. The said finding recorded by the trial court and upheld by the High E Court,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.