Manjunath murder case: SC upholds life sentence to six

New Delhi The Supreme Court today upheld the life imprisonment awarded to six men including the owner of a petrol pump for the murder of Indian Oil Corporation executive S Manjunath in Lakhimpur Kheri district in Uttar Pradesh as they bore grudge against the victim who had reported irregularities and adulteration at the outletManjunath an IIMLucknow alumunus and resident of Karnataka was gunned down at Gola area of the district on November 19 2005 after he threatened to cancel the petrol pumps license for selling spurious fuelThe six men Petrol pump owner Pawan Kumar Mittal his associates Devesh Agnihotri Rakesh Kumar Anand Shivkesh Giri Vivek Sharma Rajesh Verma were held guilty under Sections 302 murder 120 B criminal conspiracy and 201 destruction of evidence of the IPC and provisions of the Arms ActA bench of Justices S J Mukhopadhaya and N V Ramana dismissed the appeals filed by the convicts against the Allahabad High Court which had awarded life term to themMittals death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by the High Court We feel that the motive behind the brutal murder of the deceased as brought forward by the prosecution is trustworthy in the light of material available on recordConsidering the evidence on record there is no doubt in our mind that Manjunath had inspected Ms Mittal Automobiles on September 13 2005 and on finding irregularities he had reported the same to the IOC and at his instance the sales and supplies to the Pump of Mittal were suspendedthough the sales and supplies were resumed on Oct 19 2005 the deceased had again inspected the pump on November 19 2005 a day before he was found dead Suspecting that the deceased would again give report to IOC alleging irregularities in the supplies in which event he would either be called upon to pay fine or may render his licence suspended Mittal bore grudge and with the assistance of other accused murdered the deceased the bench saidThe apex court said We are in full agreement with the Courts below that the accused conspired to commit the offence of murder of the deceased The nexus between the accused to do away with the deceased has been established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubtAs regards the allegation of contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses we do not find any major contradictions which require our attention and considerationWhen a witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepanciesNo true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the Court is justified in jettisoning his evidence the bench saidIt further saidThere is no doubt that when two views are possible the one which favours the accused should be taken and the accused should be acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt But in the instant case the evidence on record is trustworthy and consistent and there is only one view which points to the guilt of the accusedThe court said that it has been consistently taking the view that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other personIn the present case on scrutiny of evidence on record we are convinced that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt the complete chain of events which points at the guilt of the accusedThus in the light of circumstances coupled with the complete chain of events this Court has no manner of doubt to hold that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubtTaking the entire case in its totality we do not find any merit in these appeals requiring our interference Resultantly the appeals fail and are dismissed the bench said