Where There Is Nothing To Discredit Eye-Witness, Motive Of Accused Is Of Little Relevance: SC Upholds Murder Conviction
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of an accused in a daylight murder case stating that where there is nothing to discredit an eye-witness, the motive of the accused in itself holds little relevance.
The defence had argued that the prosecution had not been able to establish any motive on the accused for committing the “dastardly act”, but the Court held that this was a case of “eyewitness where there is nothing to discredit the eye-witness, the motive itself is of little relevance.”
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed, “We can also not lose sight of the fact that the murder, the arrest of the accused and the recovery of the knife from him happened in quick succession, with a very little time gap. The entire evidence put together by the prosecution does establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have rightly held that the prosecution has proved their case as such.”
AOR Richa Kapoor represented the appellant, while Aishwariya Bhati, A.S.G. appeared for the respondent.
The incident involved the accused stabbing which the sister-in-law of the deceased witnessed. According to her testimony, she saw the accused stabbing the deceased multiple times with a knife after which he fled from the scene.
The sister-in-law, who was the “star witness of the prosecution” was put to a lengthy cross-examination by the defence but nothing has come out which may discredit the witness.
The Court noted that the accused was caught on the same day of the incident, with the weapon, a knife, in his possession. The forensic report and other evidence showed that the knife which was recovered from the possession of the accused was used in the commission of the crime.
“There were certain doubts raised on the manner of recovery of the knife from the accused, but nothing moves on this aspect alone, more particularly, in view of the fact that the blood of the deceased clearly matches with the blood which was found on the knife, together with the ocular evidence in the form of an eyewitness (PW-2), who is a reliable eye-witness of the incident,” the Court remarked.
Therefore, the Court found no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The accused was directed to surrender before the Trial Court “to ensure that the appellant undergoes the remaining part of his sentence.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Chandan v. The State (Delhi Admn.) [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 271]
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Richa Kapoor; Advocates Kunal Anand and Deepak Singh
Respondent: A.S.G. Aishwariya Bhati; AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria; Advocates Shivika Mehra, Rajeshwari Shankar, Alankar Gupta and Akshaja Singh
