Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

62. In the Case of Thaman Kumar v. State of Union Territory of Chandigarh :

There is no such principle or rule of law that where the prosecution fails to prove the motive for commission of the crime, it must necessarily result in acquittal of the accused. Where the ocular evidence is found to be trustworthy and reliable and finds corroboration from the medical evidence, a finding of guilt can safely be recorded even if the motive for the commission of the crime has not been proved.

63. The Sessions Judge held that the deceased and injured were assaulted by country made pistol, knife and Chapar. Dr. G.S. Dhanik, P.W. 8 had stated that the ante mortem injuries are possible by country made pistol, knife and Chapar. The medical evidence leave noroom for doubt as to the factum of the occurrence and the prosecution case with regard to its time, and the weapons used in the assault also receives corroboration from it. The place of occurrence is also fixed up by the recoveries the eye witness account regarding participation of Manoj Singh is consistent that he reached at the place of occurrence alongwith other accused carrying Chapar in his hand and inflicted injuries. He was also seen by Smt. Shanti, P.W. 4 going towards village Pipauri and P.W. 3 Balbir Singh had also deposed about the participation of the appellant Manoj Singh alongwith other accused persons and committing the murder of Dashrath Singh in village Pipauri His role was of assaulting with a Chapar. The Chapar was also recovered alongwith a knife on the pointing out of accused Chhotey Singh @ Malkhan Singh wrapped in a polythin. The serologist report shows blood was found on the Chapar also. It is also important to mention that recovery from Manoj Singh is made after the recovery of Chapar and knife. The Sessions Judge had doubted the recovery of knife from the possession of Manoj Singh on the ground that it was not clear when Manoj Singh was taken out from the police lock-up for the recovery of weapon and the recovery memo did not bear his signature and this is also not clear that according to prosecution case Manoj Singh had used Chapar in the crime but a knife is said to have been recovered on his pointing out. We do not find these grounds sufficient to doubt participation of Manoj Singh in the crime. The prosecution cannot give any evidence as to how knife was recovered on the pointing out of Manoj Singh when he was alleged to have used Chapar during the occurrence. This is simply a hypothetical question. In our opinion, on account of this otherwise credible evidence on record about the participation of Manoj Singh cannot be rejected. The Session Judge did not mention any inconsistency in the testimony of the witnesses. The ocular evidence of the eye witnesses about the participation of Manoj Singh was corroborated in material particulars by the medical evidence. If there was any mistake committed by the investigating officer in the preparation of the recovery memo the eye witness account can not be disbelieved. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Bali v. State of U.P. has held In the case of a defective investigation the court has to he circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective.

64. In Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. it was held that in cases of defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence hut it would not he right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect and to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective.

65. It is true that an order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with. But we find that the trial court highlighted minor irrelevant factors to discard credible cogent and trustworthy evidence. The acquittal of Manoj Singh is unreasonable and the Sessions Judge had wrongly ignored the testimony of the eyewitnesses, which fully proves the participation of Manoj Singh beyond reasonable doubt.