AKHTAR & Ors. v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 324
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 294, 378(3)
- U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 s. 35
Judgment
HEL0:
It was a day light incident, the motive of accused was also established on record. There is concurrent finding of the trial court as well as of the High Court that there did exist enmity between the complainant party and the accused regarding ownership and B possession on a particular piece of land. PW-2 and PW- 3 in their deposition have stated that on account of dispute and litigation with regard tc• the piece of land, the accused bore enmity against them (complainant) and the accused were on the look out to kill them (complainant). c [Para 12] [779-0, E]
Merely because PWs 2 and 3 were related to the deceased cannot be a ground for non-acceptance of their evidence, which otherwise was found to be trustworthy. It is true that these two witnessies are related to the D deceased but at the same time they were also injured witness~s. It is extremely difficult to believe that the injured witnesses who themselves got injured and whose close relatives lost their lives would shield the real culprits and name somebody else only due to some E enmity. The defence had ample opportunity to cross- examine these two injured eye-witnesses but records show that no suggestions were put to them as to how they received the injuries, mentioned in the medical reports. In fact, various documents filed by the defence F with respect to litigation among themselves itself give the unmistakable impression that there was indeed motive to attack the deceased and the injurE1d witnesses.[Para 14] [780-0, E, F]
Though PW-4, another eye-witness who was the driver of the tractor on that day at the place of occurrence was declared hostile, he substantially corroborated the prosecution version to the extent of the date, time and place of the incident as deposed by the two injured eye- witnesses. Further, even if the recovery of the pistol has G H " ) ,, _, --.< """' -. -¢ > AKHTAR & ORS. v. STATE OF UTIARANCHAL 773 not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the testimony A of the two injured eye-witnesses, which is quite consistent and has further been corroborated by the medical evidence, cannot be disbelieved. [Para 15) (780· G; 781-A, BJ
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.