Cross-examination - Question not put to witness in cross-examination - Effect of - Held, in case question is not put to
witness in cross-examination who could have furnished explanation on a particular issue, correctness or legality of said
fact/issue cannot later be raised,
Mahavir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2014) 6 SCC 716
Penal Code, 1860
Ss. 302, 120-B and 201 - Conspiracy to murder husband of one S, who had illicit relationship with J, co-conspirator with
appellant who had a grudge against deceased over marriage of S with deceased - Circumstantial evidence - Chain of -
Found complete with no link missing - That accused had opportunity to commit murder, established - No material
contradictions present - Conviction of appellant confirmed - PW 13, brother of deceased victim, alleged that deceased
went missing and that his dead body was found after about five days, floating in a canal - Allegedly, J (co-accused) had
illicit relationship with S (wife of deceased) - Appellant-accused also had a grudge on account of marriage of S with
deceased and there had also been incident of maar-peet between them and some cases were also pending - S was also
involved and all of them had conspired to eliminate deceased - Thus, investigation revealed that deceased was killed by
appellant and J, at the instance of S, and dead body was thrown away in canal - Trial court acquitted S, but convicted
appellant and J under Ss. 302, 120-B and 201 IPC, which was affirmed by High Court - Held, there is ample evidence on
record that appellant and co-accused had been last seen along with deceased - Dead body of deceased was recovered
after several days and post-mortem was conducted after about a week - However, PW 1 (doctor) opined that deceased
was murdered one week prior to date of post-mortem - It is evident that deceased was done away in close proximity of
time of being last seen with accused - None of the accused could furnish any explanation in their statement under S. 313
CrPC, as to where did they dropped deceased or where he had gone - As per medical report, there were various
grievous injuries on the neck and scalp of deceased and there also were multiple fractures on skull of deceased - As per
disclosure statement of co-accused and appellant, the recovered material contained chappal of deceased, bloodstained
shirt and pants of appellant, which were found in a polythene under the bridge - Said clothes were sent for FSL, and as
per report, it contained human blood - Blood was also found on hexa blade, frame of saw and traces of blood were also
found on pants recovered at the instance of appellant - No material contradictions were present - Minor discrepancies are
bound to occur in every case - Hence, the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and no link is missing and
accused persons had opportunity to commit murder of deceased - Both courts below, after appreciating evidence on
record, rightly held appellant guilty of offences - Therefore, conviction of appellant, confirmed,
Criminal Trial
Last seen together - Theory of - When comes into play - Murder trial - Held, it normally comes into play only in a case
where time-gap between point of time when accused and deceased were seen alive and when deceased was found
dead, is small - When said time-gap is very small, there may not be any possibility that any person other than accused,
may be the author of crime - Herein, examining medical report minutely, it becomes evident that deceased was murdered
one week prior to post-mortem which was in close proximity to time when deceased was last seen alive with appellant-
accused and co-accused - Conviction of appellant, confirmed,
Criminal Trial
Cross-examination - Question not put to witness in cross-examination - Effect of - Held, in case question is not put to
witness in cross-examination who could have furnished explanation on a particular issue, correctness or legality of said
fact/issue cannot later be raised,
No comments:
Post a Comment