Prosecution
produced two eyewitnesses (PW-3 and PW -4) to prove its case. The defence
relied on two case laws [Govindaraju
alias Govinda v. State by Sriramapuram Police Station and another (2012) 4 SCC 722 and Lallu Manjhi and another v. State of Jharkhand (2003) 2 SCC 401] to contend that Pw -3 could not have witness the occurrence as deposed by him.
alias Govinda v. State by Sriramapuram Police Station and another (2012) 4 SCC 722 and Lallu Manjhi and another v. State of Jharkhand (2003) 2 SCC 401] to contend that Pw -3 could not have witness the occurrence as deposed by him.
The
Hon’ble Supreme Court however believed on the witness of PW-3, holding that
“P.W.3 was wholly reliable and there was no reason to doubt his version in order
to apply the principles set out in the above referred decisions.”
The
Court based its opinion holding that:
(i)
We find that the High Court made a close scrutiny of the version of P.W.3 and
has found that he was a totally independent witness and he had no axe to grind
against the appellant. In fact, his statement that he could not identify the
other accused, as rightly held by the Division Bench of the High Court, was a
very fair statement. When he also belonged to the same village, there was no reason
for him to implicate the appellant alone. He could have simply stated that he
knew the other accused also and that he had noted their presence at the place
of occurrence. Therefore, the conclusion of the High Court that such a fair
statement made by the witness, namely, P.W.3 cannot be used to totally erase
his version, was perfectly justified.
(ii)
When we come to the evidence of P.W.3 it is true that with regard to the
identity of the rest of the accused other than the appellant, he stated that he
could name them only at the instance of the police personnel.
(iii)
As far as his presence at the place of occurrence was concerned, his version
read along with the evidence of P.W.4 discloses that the presence of both of
them was beyond any pale of controversy.
(iv)
presence of P.W.3 along with P.W.4 at the time when the occurrence took place
and the identity of the appellant by P.W.3 and describing his involvement in
the commission of the offence as narrated by him, was rightly believed by the
trial Court, as well as, by the High Court and we are also convinced that such
a reliance placed upon the eye-witness account of P.W.3 for convicting the
appellant with the aid of other witnesses is perfectly justified.
(v) Even
as regards the assault on the deceased, the version of P.W.3 was fully
corroborated by P.W.4
(vi)
Because he did not make any attempt to go to rescue of the deceased cannot be
put against the witness, inasmuch as when four persons were assaulting the
deceased with dangerous weapons that too in the night hour in the present day
set up, one cannot expect an unarmed person to get himself entangled and suffer
unnecessary harm to himself. Moreover, the occurrence took place late in the
light at around 9 pm and, therefore, prudence might have dawned upon him not to
fall a cheap prey at the hands of such criminals who were already assaulting a
person with a dagger and other weapons
(vii)
Equally his conduct in having come back to the place of occurrence in the early
morning at around 7.30 am along with P.W.4 only shows his earnestness in
disclosing what he witnessed on the previous night to the police.
To see the full text follow the link: