Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

Eye Witness's Evidence Cannot Be Discarded Merely Because He Did Not Intervene When Deceased Was Attacked: Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
27 Feb 2022 4:15 AM GMT
Eye Witnesss Evidence Cannot Be Discarded Merely Because He Did Not Intervene When Deceased Was Attacked: Supreme Court
x

The Supreme Court observed that evidence of an eye witness cannot be discarded only for the reason that he allegedly did not raise any alarm or did not try to intervene when the deceased was being attacked.The court observed thus while dismissing an appeal filed by an accused who was concurrently convicted in a murder case of offences under Section 302 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms...

The Supreme Court observed that evidence of an eye witness cannot be discarded only for the reason that he allegedly did not raise any alarm or did not try to intervene when the deceased was being attacked.

The court observed thus while dismissing an appeal filed by an accused who was concurrently convicted in a murder case of offences under Section 302 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. As per prosecution, the accused was having a love affair with the deceased but, got enraged when he saw the deceased talking to another boy; and caused multiple injuries to the deceased by a pointed knife, leading to her death. The conviction was based on the evidence given by an eyewitness, who asserted having seen the accused repeatedly causing injuries on the person of the deceased.

Before the Apex Court, the accused's contention was that the said witness cannot said to be a reliable witness, particularly when the incident allegedly happened in front of his house, but he neither raised any alarm nor tried to save the deceased. It was further contended that excessive number of injuries on the person of the deceased would suggest involvement of more than one person.

"The evidence of PW-1, being the eye-witness to the incident, remains unimpeachable and has been believed by the two Courts. His evidence cannot be discarded only for the reason that he allegedly did not raise any alarm or did not try to intervene when the deceased was being ferociously assaulted and stabbed. Excessive number of injuries do not ipso facto lead to an inference about involvement of more than one person; rather the nature of injuries and similarity of their size/dimension would only lead to the inference that she was mercilessly and repeatedly stabbed by the same weapon and by the same person.", the bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath said while rejecting both the above contention raised by the accused.

Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal.


Headnotes

Criminal Trial - Eye Witness - The evidence of eye-witness cannot be discarded only for the reason that he allegedly did not raise any alarm or did not try to intervene when the deceased was being ferociously assaulted and stabbed.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Appeal against concurrent conviction under Section 302 - Excessive number of injuries do not ipso facto lead to an inference about involvement of more than one person; rather the nature of injuries and similarity of their size/dimension would only lead to the inference that she was mercilessly and repeatedly stabbed by the same weapon and by the same person - The evidence of the eye-witness to the incident, remains unimpeachable and has been believed by the two Courts - Do not find the present one to be a case of manifest illegality so as to call for interference. 



Case : Suresh Yadav @ Guddu vs State of Chhattisgarh | CrA 1349 OF 2013 | 25 Feb 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 217
Coram: Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath






Next Story