Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w. s.201 and 506-B – Prosecution case that appellant committed murder of his two brothers and a nephew – There was a property dispute of appellant with his both brothers – On the day of incident, PW-1-complainant had gone to attend the call of nature – While returning, she saw the appellant armed with an axe getting out of her house – When she went inside her house she saw her brother-in-law lying dead in outer room – His neck was cut – When she came in the courtyard, she saw her son dead, having injuries on his neck and head – She followed the appellant towards the field – She saw the appellant assaulting her husband with the axe – When she tried to stop the accused from assaulting the deceased, the accused abused her and told her to go away and threatened her – Her husband also died – Her other two children (PW-2 and PW-3) in house, who saw the incident escaped from the house – The trial Court convicted appellant for offences u/s.302 r/w. s.201 and s.506B IPC and awarded him death sentence – His death sentence was confirmed by the High Court – On appeal, held: It is clear from the evidence of PW-1, that she had personally witnessed the appellant assaulting deceased-husband – It is further clear from the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 that they have personally witnessed the appellant assaulting their brother and uncle – The evidence of these three witnesses is duly corroborated by the other witnesses – PWs 4, 5 and 6 corroborated the testimony of PW-1 – PW-6 corroborated testimony of PW-2 and 3 – Upon perusal of the evidence of the witnesses as a whole, the evidence is cogent, reliable and trustworthy – As far as capital punishment is concerned, the trial court as well as the High Court has only taken into consideration the crime but have not taken into consideration the criminal, his state of mind, his socio-economic background etc – The appellant comes from a rural and economically poor background – There are no criminal antecedents – The appellant cannot be said to be a hardened criminal – This is the first offence committed by the appellant – The certificate issued by the Jail Superintendent shows that the conduct of the appellant during incarceration was satisfactory – It cannot be said that there is no possibility of the appellant being reformed and rehabilitated – Therefore, the death sentence awarded to the appellant is converted to life imprisonment for a period of 30 years. Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It could be seen that what is required to be considered is whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. It has been held that minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. It has been held that the prosecution evidence may suffer from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there, but that is a shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. What is important is to see as to whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof. It has been held that there are always normal discrepancies due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition, shock and horror at the time of occurrence. It is the duty of the court to separate falsehood from the truth in every case. [Para 31][779-E-H; 780-A]
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna Master and Others (2010)
12 SCC 324 : [2010] 9 SCR 563 – relied on.
2. This Court is of the view that the minor discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are not of such a nature which would persuade this Court to disbelieve their testimonies. It is further to be noted that the witnesses are rustic villagers and some inconsistencies in their depositions are bound to be there. [Para 32][780-A-B]
3. This Court has held that in case of rustic witnesses, some inconsistencies and discrepancies are bound to be found. It has been held that the inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses should not be blown out of proportion. To do so is to ignore hard realities of village life and give undeserved benefit to the accused. It has been held that the evidence of such witnesses has to be appreciated as a whole. A rustic witness is not expected to remember every small detail of the incident and the manner in which the incident had happened. Further, a witness is bound to face shock of the untimely death of his near relatives. Upon perusal of the evidence of the witnesses as a whole, this Court is of the considered view that their evidence is cogent, reliable and trustworthy. [Para 34][780-G-H; 781-A-B]
4. Insofar as the contention of the appellant that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case is concerned, the ocular evidence of the eye witnesses is cogent, reliable and trustworthy. Apart from that, the oral version in the testimonies of PWs 1, 2 and 3 is duly corroborated by the injuries as shown in the Post-Mortem Report of the deceased persons. Therefore, the contention in this regard is liable to be rejected. [Para 36][782-A-B]
5. Since the present case is a case of direct evidence, even if the prosecution has failed to prove the other incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, in our view, it will not have an effect on the prosecution case. In the present case, another factor that is to be noted is that immediately after the incident, FIR is lodged by PW-1 who was accompanied by PW-4. The FIR fully corroborates the ocular evidence of prosecution witnesses. [Para 38][782-C-D]
6. In that view of the matter, this Court of the considered view that even upon reappreciation of the evidence, it cannot be said that the trial court has committed an error in convicting the appellant and the High Court in confirming the same. [Para 39][782-E]
7. From the judgment of the trial court as well as the High Court, it does not appear that the courts below have drawn a balance sheet of mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The trial court as well as the High Court has only taken into consideration the crime but have not taken into consideration the criminal, his state of mind, his socio- economic background etc. [Para 43][784-C-D]
8. In view of the settled legal position, it is our bounden duty to take into consideration the probability of the accused being reformed and rehabilitated. It is also our duty to take into consideration not only the crime but also the criminal, his state of mind and his socio-economic conditions. The deceased as well as the appellant are rustic villagers. In a property dispute, the appellant has got done away with two of his siblings and a nephew. The State has not placed on record any evidence to show that there is no possibility with respect to reformation or rehabilitation of the convict. The appellant has placed on record the affidavits of son of appellant and nephew of appellant and also the report of the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Jabalpur. The appellant comes from a rural and economically poor background. There are no criminal antecedents. The appellant cannot be said to be a hardened criminal. This is the first offence committed by the appellant, no doubt, a heinous one. The certificate issued by the Jail Superintendent shows that the conduct of the appellant during incarceration has been satisfactory. 9. It cannot therefore be said that there is no possibility of the appellant being reformed and rehabilitated foreclosing the alternative option of a lesser sentence and making imposition of death sentence imperative. The conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 506-B of the IPC is affirmed. However, the death sentence awarded to the appellant is converted to life imprisonment for a period of 30 years. [Paras 44 and 46] [785-D-G; 786-A-B]
Mohd. Mannan alias Abdul Mannan v. State of Bihar (2019) 16 SCC 584 : [2019] 8 SCR 266; Mofil Khan and Another v. The State of Jharkhand RP (Criminal) No. 641/2015 in Criminal Appeal No.1795/2009 dated 26.11.2021; Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 12 SCC 460 : [2018] 14 SCR 585 – relied on.
Krishnan and Another v. State represented by Inspector of Police (2003) 7 SCC 56 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 771; Pratap Singh and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2005) 13 SCC 624 : [2005] 5 Suppl. SCR 439;
Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab alias Abu
Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 1 : [2012] 8 SCR 295; Dayanidhi Bisoi v. State of Orissa (2003) 9 SCC 310 : 2003 AIR 3915; Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India and Others (2014) 9 SCC 737 : [2014] 11 SCR 1009; R. Shaji v. State of Kerala (2013) 14 SCC 266 : [2013] 3 SCR 1172; Rammi alias Rameshwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 649 : [1999] 3 Suppl. SCR 1; Ravi s/o Ashok Ghumare v. State of Maharashtra (2019)
9 SCC 622 : [2019] 15 SCR 712; Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 : 1980 AIR 898; Machhi Singh and Others v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470 : [1983] 3 SCR 413 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.