Bhaskarrao & Ors. vs State of Maharashtra

HELD: 1. In the present case, the trial court, followed by a full-fledged trial, comes to the conclusion and by cogent reasoning acquits the accused. In such a case, the appellate Court is further burdened with the task of reaffirming the innocence of the accused. In such cases, the appellate Court is expected to be very cautious and its interference with the order of acquittal is called for only when there are compelling reasons and substantial grounds. In other words, the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is founded, yet the presumption of innocence of the accused being further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial Court, the findings of that Court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons. [Para 23] [768-F-H; 769-A]

Surajpal Singh & Ors. v. The State, 1952 CriLJ 331 – relied on.

2. The prosecution relies on the circumstantial evidence to prove the case. The value of circumstantial evidence rests in its accumulative effect, that is to say, while a single piece of circumstantial evidence may only slightly increase the likelihood that the accused is guilty, several such evidences taken together may carry enough probative force to justify the conviction, if such circumstantial evidence forms an unbroken chain of events resulting in only one hypothesis so canvassed. [Para 26] [769-D-E]

3. The witnesses in the present case were inter-related, and this court should be cautious in accepting their statements. Whoever has been a witness before the court of law, having a strong interest in result, if allowed to be weighed in the same scales with those who do not have any interest in the result, would be to open the doors of the court for perverted truth. This sound rule which remain the bulwark of this system, and which determines the value of evidence derived from such sources, needs to be cautiously and carefully observed and enforced. There is no dispute about the fact that the interest of the witness must affect his testimony is a universal truth. Moreover, under the influence of bias, a man may not be in a position to judge correctly, even if they earnestly desire to do so. Similarly, he may not be in a position to provide evidence in an impartial manner, when it involves his interest. Under such influences, man will, even though not consciously, suppress some facts, soften or modify others, and provide favorable color. These are most controlling considerations in respect to the credibility of human testimony, and should never to be overlooked in applying the rules of evidence and determining its weight in the scale of truth under the facts and circumstances of each case. [Paras 27 and 31] [769-F; 771-F-H; 772-A]

Dalip Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, [1954] 1 SCR 145; Masalti v. State of U.P., [1964] 8 SCR 133; Darya Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, [1964] 3 SCR 397; Harbans Kaur & Anr. v. State of Haryana, 2005 CriLJ 2199; Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 14 SCC

150 : [2007] 3 SCR 939 – relied on.

4. The prosecution has heavily relied on the statement of PW1. The allegation particularly levelled by her was that the accused carried the assault on the deceased at three places i.e., in front of the house of the deceased and near the house of PW3 and at the fields of ‘Y’. However, in their depositions PWs 2, 4 and 5 did not mention about such assault on the deceased in front of PW3. It appears from the material that there are no eyewitnesses who had seen the accused attacking the deceased in the fields of ‘Y’. The statements of PW3 also appears to be not consistent throughout. At one point of time, he deposed that the deceased had died in front of his house. Altogether a different statement was given to the investigating authorities and in the Court. Similar is the case of PW4, who has made improvements as regards to the assault on the deceased. Also there were varying statements by the prosecution witnesses as regards PW4, on the aspect of receiving the blow.Though she stated that she could recognize the assailants by their face as she does not know their names, yet test identification parade was not conducted which is fatal to the case of prosecution. [Paras 32 and 33] [77-B, C-F]

5. PWs 2, 3 and 5 in their depositions gave contradictory statements as to the involvement of number of accused persons in the crime and also about noticing the accused who dragged the deceased while assaulting him and dragging towards school whereas PWs 1 and 4 were silent on this aspect. There were also contradictory statements by prosecution witnesses as regards the availability of light at the time of occurrence. [Para 33] [772-G]

6. PW1 has not witnessed the chopping of the hand, which resulted in the ultimate death of her husband. It is prudent for this Court to not believe in absence of cogent evidence concerning the culpability of the accused, as her evidence is ridden with apparent internal contradictions and inconsistencies. [Para 34] [773-C-D]

7. In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive has a role to play, but to dislodge prosecution’s case solely based on lack of motive would amount to giving credit to this factor, where it is not due. The motive behind the accused assaulting the deceased was said to be the quarrel during which the deceased had slapped Accused No. 4 near a grocery shop in the village. Incidentally, prosecution could also not prove the same by examining the independent witness present at the grocery shop, though as many as 19 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. PW10, Head Constable of the Police Station who reduced the oral complaint of PW1 into writing, categorically stated that PW1 had also not mentioned about previous quarrel at the time of lodging of complaint. There were, undoubtedly lot of improvements in the statement of PW1 from the stage of complaint to her examination-in-chief. Moreover, the evidence of PW1 concerning the quarrel is barred for being hearsay evidence. [Para 35] [773-F-G; 774-A-B]

Hari Shanker v. State of U.P. (1996) 9 SCC 40 : [1996]

2 Suppl. SCR 348; Ujjagar Singh v. State of Punjab, (2007) 13 SCC 90 : [ 2007] 13 SCR 653; State of U.P. v. Kishanpal & Ors., (2008) 16 SCC 73 : [2008]

11 SCR 1048; Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 12 SCC 91 : [2010] 8 SCR 1036 – relied on.

Chandler v. DPP [1964] AC 763 – referred to.

General Principles of Criminal Law by Jerome Hall

88 (2d ed. 1960) – referred to.

8. Alternatively, the prosecution has alleged that motive for the crime was that the accused party belongs to non-SC/ST community whereas the victim was belonging to SC community. The prosecution could not prove that the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste and accused were from non-Scheduled Caste or Tribe and the prosecution has failed to prove any charge against the accused including the charge under Section 3(i)(x) and 2(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. As against that charge, the High Court also confirmed the view taken by the trial Court, which in other words proved the prosecution version to be wrong. [Para 36] [774-C-D]

9. An accused is, of course, vicariously guilty of the offence even if he is not directly indulged in the commission of offence but committed by other accused, in case he is proved to be a member of unlawful assembly sharing its common object. It is evident that as per PW1-complainant, in the FIR the number of persons mentioned by her, who have entered into their house was four, while about 20 to 25 persons were assembled outside the house and all of them assaulted the deceased. However, in the examination-in-chief she deposed that there were in all 15 assailants who attacked her husband. Though she failed to name the assailants in her deposition she made out a point that she knew all the assailants. According to PW10, the author of complaint, PW1 did not state about entry of accused Nos. 13 and

15 into her house. There was also no mention by her at the time of lodging of FIR about carrying an axe by A-11, a sword by A-13, a pipe by A-15 and sticks by other accused. Going by the material on record, it can be said that there was no satisfactory explanation on the part of PW1 for omissions in the FIR and improvements before the Court. [Para 37] [774-F-H; 775-A]

10. PW11, a panch witness of seizure of bloodstained clothes of the accused Nos. 1 to 7, did not support the prosecution case. Similarly, the seizure is doubtful in the case of clothes pertaining to accused No. 11 to which PW13 was witness. Going by the material on record, the correctness of seizure of clothes of other accused persons also do not inspire confidence.[Para 38] [775-B-C]

11. PW6 who proved the recovery of weapons at the instance of accused—appellants, could not point out his signature on the respective disclosure statements and seizure panchnamas. He also admitted that Ext.72 (memorandum) and Ext. 73 (seizure panchnama) does not bear his signature. PW9 deposed that after recovering sticks from the houses of accused Nos. 1 to 7, they returned to the village panchayat office where almost all the papers were scribed. Based on the Chemical Analysis report, those sticks cannot be considered to be incriminating articles as there were no blood stains on those sticks. In the same way, the sword and axe allegedly recovered from Accused Nos. 13 and 11 respectively also do not have bloodstains. In these circumstances, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved the fact that the palm of the deceased has been amputated by the accused with those weapons. [Para 39] [775-D-F]

12. In the opinion of the doctor-PW7, who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased, the cause of the death was due to heavy loss of blood owing to the amputation of his hand. However, his vital organs were found to be normal and there was no injury to the vital organs. PW7 has specifically mentioned that there was no laceration or contusion sustained by the deceased and opined that had there been timely medical treatment, the deceased would have survived. At the same time she made it clear that in case a person is beaten up with sticks and iron pipe, as alleged by the prosecution in the present case, contusions and lacerations are possible. In her cross-examination, the Doctor also revealed that because of amputation of hand and leg or both, a person may not die. Thus, in totality, the medical evidence is not corroborating with the prosecution’s case. [Para 40] [775-G-H; 776-A-B]

13. Many persons, especially neighbours of the deceased, who witnessed the important circumstances and who could be vital independent witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution. There is no convincing explanation forthcoming from the prosecution side. [Para 41] [776-F]

14. In the midst of several contradictory statements among the prosecution witnesses, there is no proper explanation on record for PW1 and police searching for the deceased at the wells and nullahs of the village, instead of searching around the school, as per the prosecution story PWs 2, 3 and 5 were fully aware that the deceased was dragged towards school. Moreover, looking at the ambiguous narration of sequences described by the witnesses, the chain of events in the case cannot be said to have been properly brought on record by the prosecution. [Para 42] [777B-C]

15. It is always the duty of the Court to separate chaff from the husk and to dredge the truth from the pandemonium of Statements. It is but natural for human beings to state variant statements due to time gap but if such statements go to defeat the core of the prosecution then such contradictions are material and the Court has to be mindful of such statements. [Para 42] [777-C-D]

Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1959 SC 1012 – relied on.

16. High Court has misconstrued certain aspects of the case. According to PW2 the incident occurred at about 9 p.m. In the FIR also the time was mentioned as 9 p.m. But the High Court in its judgment observed that the incident took place at about 7.30 p.m. Thus, it is clear from the record that the alleged incident has occurred at 9 p.m. and not at 7.30 p.m. as assumed by the High Court, and there were also no eyewitnesses to the alleged amputation of the hand of deceased and causing his death. [Para 43] [777-E-F, G]

17. In view of the shortcomings and discrepancies in the prosecution case coupled with the improvements and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, it cannot be said that the accused persons had really formed into an unlawful assembly and carried out an assault on the deceased that too with a view to kill him, so as to attract the provisions of criminal law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is abundantly clear that the guilt of the accused persons was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court had dealt with the case in a fool-proof manner by drawing out 11 important circumstances and delivered a well reasoned judgment thereby acquitting the accused, with which the High Court ought not to have interfered. There were no compelling reasons and substantial grounds for the High Court to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. [Para 45] [778-B-D] Mahavir Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 10 SCC 220 : [2016] 8 SCR 394; L.L. Kale v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2000) 1 SCC 295; Joginder Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana (2010) 15 SCC 407; Nankaunoo v. State of U.P. (2016) 3 SCC 317 : [2016]

4 SCR 627; Tota Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, 1987 CriLJ 974; Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, 1996 CriLJ 2867 – referred to.