Shashwati Chowdhury
Published on: July 14, 2022 at 19:51 IST
In Malti Sahu and another v. Rahul and Anr., the Supreme Court reiterated that the evidence of a hostile witness may be considered to the extent that it supports the prosecution.
The conviction and sentencing of the accused for the murder offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code were upheld by a Division Bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna.
Malti Devi, the appellant and a teacher by profession, left her two children at home on December 16, 2011, and went to work. When she came home later that evening, she discovered her son and daughter dead with their throats cut in a pool of blood.
The neighbourhood police station carried an investigation after receiving a complaint. In the course of the investigation, witness statements were collected. One of the witnesses, Sidharth Vashisht, said to have seen the respondent-accused, Rahul, and the two children comimg from the side of a school’s side and into their locality while wearing a blue sweater. Additionally, it was informed that Rahul did not wear the aforementioned sweater but he had covered himself with a brown shawl.
Aggrieved, the accused respondent went to the High Court, which quashed and overruled the order of conviction and punishment passed by the trial court.
As far as the respondent-accused is concerned, the prosecution was successful in proving the motive, according to the court’s view.
The Court commented that, “Sidharth Vashisht, a witness who initially gave statement against the respondent-accused but then became hostile, would be considered relevant to the extent that his statement supported the prosecution’s case.”
The recovery of the knife that was used to commit the offence was also noted by the court as another piece of evidence that established the accused person’s guilt. The prosecution was successful in establishing and proving that the respondent-accused made the aforementioned knife purchase, according to the court.
It further stated that the accused respondent had not provided an adequate explanation for the injury to his ring finger. While the accused said falsely that an iron bar caused the injuries, the doctor had indicated that it could have happened as a result of a sharp-edged weapon.
Accordingly the top court set aside the High Court’s decision.
