The Supreme Court in its judgment dated 05.04.2024 upheld the order of the Trial Court and the High Court and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The Court observed that where there is nothing to discredit the eye-witness, the motive is of little relevance.
The present case dates back to 28.05.1993 when a daylight murder with a reliable eye-witness. The case is about murder of Rakesh by Chandan. The accused stabbed the deceased multiple times with a knife, as witnessed by the victim’s sister-in-law from a short distance. Shortly after the murder, the accused was captured in possession of the murder weapon. The forensic report attested to the fact that the blood on the knife matched the deceased’s blood.
Being unhappy with the conviction and sentence upheld by the High Court in appeal, the appellant approached the apex court. The appellant before this Court was convicted under Section 302 of IPC in a daylight murder with a reliable eye-witness as per the prosecution.
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed the fact that the evidences produced by the prosecution that blood of the deceased matches exactly with the blood which was found on the knife and the ocular evidence of PW-2, a reliable eye-witness of the whole case, if put together clearly prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed, “Both the Trial Court and the High Court have rightly held that the prosecution has proved their case as such.”
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution has been unable to prove any motive of the accused behind committing this dastardly act. The court held that since this case is of an eyewitness and the motive is of little relevance, when there is nothing to discredit the eye-witness. The court relied on some earlier judgments to prove the point that “it is a well-settled principle in criminal jurisprudence that when ocular testimony inspires the confidence of the court, the prosecution is not required to prove motive.”
It was observed that motive is significant for consideration in a case of circumstantial evidence. But where there is direct eye witness, motive is irrelevant. If in a case motive of the accused is properly established, it would strengthen the case of the prosecution and court will also take it into consideration before declaring the ultimate conclusion. It does not mean that if motive remains unestablished, the evidence of an eye-witness will be considered untrustworthy. The principle that when direct evidence establishes the crime, the absence of motive is inconsequential has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Bikau Pandey v. State of Bihar, Rajagopal v. Muthupandi, Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh.
Keeping this in mind, the court did not find any rationale behind overturning the judgment of the High Court. A division bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale ordered the appellant to surrender before the trial court within four weeks to ensure that the appellant completes the remaining part of his sentence and his bail grant was also vacated.
Case Name: Chandan (Appellant) v. The State (Delhi Admn.) (Respondent), Criminal Appeal No.788 of 2012,
NAME: SHUBHI SRIVASTAVA,COURSE: B.A.LL.B. (Hons.),COLLEGE: JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA, NEW DELHI,INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature
0 Comments