CASE TITLE:
Chhunna Vs State Of UP
JUDGEMENT DATE :
25TH MAY, 2022
JUDGE(S):
Hon’ble Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Om Prakash Tripathi.
PARTIES :
Petitioner: CHHUNNA
Respondent: STATE OF UP
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
SECTION 302 OF IPC
SUBJECT
The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that a close relative who is a natural witness cannot be recorded as an interested witness. With this decision, the Court upheld the life sentence given to a murder convict by District and Sessions Judge Kanpur Dehat in 1996.
BRIEF FACTS
- The complainant in the case (Subhash Chandra Mishra) filed the FIR alleging that accused Chunna murdered his father/Sunder Lal (deceased) on March 22, 1995. According to his complaint, the deceased had his flour mill, where on March 22, 1995, at approximately 8:00 PM, the deceased, his sons (complainant), and Rakesh (eye witness) were busy grinding flour. Chunna and Dinesh were accused of wanting to get their wheat ground first, thus outnumbering the other customers.
- Subhash Chandra (complainant/informant) and his brother Rakesh responded by asking them to grind the wheat on their turn. Accused Chunna and Dinesh threatened them to see this.
- On that very night, the deceased, who was sleeping near the informant's and others' beds, cried out. Hearing his cries, Rakesh/son deceased's (P.W.2) and one Suresh Kumar awoke and saw Chhunna- the accused inflicting knife blows on the deceased (who died later on).
- The accused fled after being challenged by Rakesh P.W.2 and Suresh. Rakesh and Suresh pursued him, but both the accused fled into the darkness. In March 1996, the District and Sessions Judge of Kanpur Dehat convicted and sentenced the appellant/chhunna to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the IPC with a fine of Rs.3,000/-, and in default, to one year rigorous additional imprisonment. In defiance of that very order and judgement, the accused moved to the HC.
ISSUE RAISED
Whether a natural witness to a crime who is a close relative can be recorded as an interested witness or not?
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- The Court noted at the outset that P.W.2 Rakesh (son of the deceased) was the only witness who stated about the manner of occurrence and the accused's complicity. Furthermore, the Court determined that he was not an interested witness and that his presence on the scene at the time of the incident could not be disputed.
- The Court also held that it could not be expected that an independent witness would be present in the middle of the night on the premises of the flour mill.
- The Court also considered the evidence presented to it and concluded that Rakesh P.W.2's evidence found corroboration from the recovery of a human blood-stained knife on the pointing out of the accused and human blood was found on plain and blood-stained earth, dhoti, shirt, half sweater, vest and towel of the deceased.
CONCLUSION
As a result, the Court noted that the prosecution had successfully proven accused Chhunna's guilt for the offence punishable under Section 302 11 IPC. "It is a planned murder committed four hours after an altercation on the same day. It is not a case of serious and unexpected provocation "as it upheld the trial Court's order and judgement, the court added. Despite the dismissal of the appeal, the accused appellant Chhunna was ordered to serve the remainder of his sentence while on bail.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
