A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
The Supreme Court addressed the conviction of Dinesh Sahu Alias Dinnu under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for the murder of Vinod Sai, affirming concurrent findings by lower courts. Despite challenges regarding the credibility of witnesses, including hostile witnesses, the prosecution successfully proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt through corroborated evidence, including weapon recovery and forensic findings. The appeal was dismissed, underscoring the sufficiency of evidence in ensuring justice.
Keywords: Section 302, Section 34 IPC, Hostile Witness, Forensic Evidence, Weapon Recovery, Concurrent Conviction.
B) CASE DETAILS
i) Judgment Cause Title:
Dinesh Sahu Alias Dinnu v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
ii) Case Number:
Criminal Appeal No(s). 960 of 2021
iii) Judgment Date:
22 August 2024
iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum:
Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
vi) Author:
Justice Bela M. Trivedi
vii) Citation:
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 929 : 2024 INSC 740
viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860
ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case:
None.
x) Case Related to Which Law Subjects:
Criminal Law – Homicide.
C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT
The case stemmed from the murder of Vinod Sai, caused by animosity arising from prior disputes. The appellant, armed with a khukri, and co-accused, Raju Sharma, inflicted fatal injuries on the victim. Lower courts, relying on evidence, convicted both under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. This appeal challenged the High Court’s affirmation of the trial court’s findings.
D) FACTS OF THE CASE
1. Relationship and Animosity:
The deceased, Vinod Sai, operated a tea stall. His prior conflict with Raju Sharma escalated into complaints lodged against each other on 10 September 2004.
2. Incident Details:
On 11 November 2006, the appellant, armed with a khukri, and Raju Sharma, armed with a sword, attacked the deceased at his tea stall. The victim succumbed to his injuries on the spot.
3. Witness Account:
Eyewitnesses, including Kamal Sanwale (PW-6) and the victim’s mother, Shashi Bai (PW-13), corroborated the sequence of events.
4. Investigation:
The police recovered the khukri used in the murder from the appellant’s house. Forensic analysis confirmed the presence of the victim’s blood on the weapon.
E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the prosecution proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
- Can the evidence of hostile witnesses be entirely disregarded?
- Does the recovery of the weapon and forensic evidence sufficiently corroborate the crime?
F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
1. Doubt on Witness Credibility:
The counsel emphasized that Kamal Singh (PW-6) and other material witnesses turned hostile. The delayed statement of Shashi Bai (PW-13) cast further doubt on her testimony.
2. Questioning Recovery Evidence:
The defense argued the unreliability of Pratap Singh (PW-14), who witnessed the recovery of the khukri, alleging he was biased and intoxicated during deposition.
3. Absence of Mens Rea:
The appellant contended that no evidence established his intention to commit murder or share a common intention with Raju Sharma.
G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
1. Weight of Concurrent Findings:
The State argued that both trial and appellate courts’ concurrent findings based on credible evidence warranted no interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
2. Admissibility of Hostile Witness Testimony:
The prosecution relied on the Dehati Nalisi report and partial corroboration from hostile witnesses to substantiate the crime.
3. Forensic Corroboration:
The blood-stained khukri conclusively linked the appellant to the crime, as supported by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report.
H) JUDGMENT
a. Ratio Decidendi
The prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt through a combination of eyewitness testimonies, forensic evidence, and recovery of the weapon.
b. Obiter Dicta
The Court emphasized that evidence from hostile witnesses cannot be dismissed outright and may retain probative value.
c. Guidelines/Observations
- Testimonies of hostile witnesses should be evaluated carefully and not dismissed in entirety.
- Recovery of the weapon, if corroborated by forensic evidence, holds significant weight in criminal trials.
- Concurrent findings of lower courts demand deference unless manifest injustice is evident.
I) CONCLUSION AND COMMENTS
This judgment reiterates the principle that evidence of hostile witnesses, coupled with forensic and material findings, can decisively affirm guilt. It also underscores the limited scope of interference by the Supreme Court in concurrent factual determinations.
J) REFERENCES
a. Important Cases Referred
- State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, (1977) 2 SCC 491
- Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, (1976) 1 SCC 389
b. Important Statutes Referred
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34
- Constitution of India – Article 136
