Murder Trial | Prosecution Not Required To Seek Corroboration In Form Of Motive & Recovery Where Ocular Testimony Is Convincing: Rajasthan HC

In the present matter, an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. was filed seeking suspension of sentence awarded by the trial court, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced with life imprisonment under Sections 302 (Murder) and 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt) IPC. The appellant urged that he has strong case for assailing the impugned judgment and hence, he deserves indulgence of bail during pendency of the appeal.

Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani, while dismissing the petition as it being devoid of merit,

"We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. We may state that it is a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that in a case of murder, where ocular testimony is convincing, there is no requirement for the prosecution to seek corroboration in the form of motive and recovery."

The court, therefore, noted that even if the appellant's argument regarding lack of evidence of motive and the doubtful nature of the recovery is to be accepted, the fact remains that the eye witnesses referred have given categoric testimony that the appellant herein inflicted the Sword blow on the neck of the deceased Sharda which proved fatal. The allegations of the eye witnesses are duly corroborated by the medical testimony, added the court.

Considering the nature and gravity of allegations, the court opined that the appellant does not deserve indulgence of bail.

It was also opined by the court that since the incident took place in the house of the complainant, there was no possibility of any independent witness having seen the same. The court also observed that the presence of the eye-witnesses in the house cannot be doubted.

The appellant's counsel argued that the eye witnesses who have given evidence against the appellant are all related to the deceased and their evidence is partisan in nature. The prosecution did not lead any substantive evidence to corroborate the theory of motive for the incident as attributed to the appellant in the FIR, he added. He submitted that the recovery of the Sword shown from the appellant is totally fabricated because the appellant was arrested on 09.03.2019 whereas, on a perusal of the Malkhana Register, it becomes clear that the Sword had already been recovered and deposited in the Malkhana of police station on 08.03.2019.

He further submitted that a suggestion was given by the defence to few of the eye witnesses that as a matter of fact the witness Shailesh (PW-8) and the witness Kalu (PW-1) being son and husband respectively of the deceased Sharda were fighting with each other and when Sharda intervened, she received the injury on the neck.

The Public Prosecutor contended that the eye-witnesses have given clinching evidence on the aspect that the appellant herein inflicted the Sword blow on the neck of the deceased Smt. Sharda. Relying on the post-mortem report and the Photographs he pointed out that there is clear evidence of the wound on the neck which is apparently caused by a sharp weapon. He urged that the witnesses Smt. Shanoo (PW10) and the child witness Nilesh (PW-11) categorically alleged that the appellant herein inflicted the blow of the Sword on the neck of Smt. Sharda. The defence did not put a single question to these witnesses on this aspect of their testimony, which remained uncontroverted, he added.

Case Title: Raman v. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 144

Click Here To Read/Download Order