Penal Code, 1870 – ss. 304 Part I, 308, 147, 148, 323, 324, 325/149 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – First Information Report by the complainant that seven armed men assaulted his uncle and aunt while they were working in their agricultural field, causing them grievous injuries, resulting in the death of the uncle – Incident witnessed by several relatives who tried to intervene but failed – Conviction and sentence for the offences u/ss. 302, 307, 323, 324, 325, 447, 147/148 read with s. 149 – However, the High Court acquitted them for the major offences u/ss. 302 and 307, and were convicted only for the offences u/ss. 147, 148, 323, 324, 325/149 – Correctness:
Held: This case is of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and not of murder – Injuries sustained by the assailants could not be proved in the trial, defence witness stood thoroughly discredited – There were contradictions in the two statements of an injured eye witness – These contradictions, however, are not enough to completely discredit this witness, she is a reliable witness – Some discrepancies invariably occur in such cases taking into account her rural back ground – Reasons assigned for disbelieving the statement of the eye witness by the High Court not correct – Apart from this eye-witness, there were other eyewitnesses as well – Also recovery of the weapons and the blood-stained cloth of the accused – In view of these contradictions, benefit of doubt given to the accused – As regards premeditated attack, the attack would come u/s.300 Exception 4, the attack not being premeditated, but was, “in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner” – Thus, the approach of the High Court was not correct – Order of the High Court set aside and quashed – Conviction u/s. 302 converted to that of s. 304 Part I and that of s.307 to s. 308 and are sentenced accordingly – Case abates against the accused who expired. [Para 27-32]
Witness – Contractions in the two statements, one given to police u/s.161 Cr.PC., and the other given before the court – Credibility: Held: Contractions in the two statements may or may not be sufficient to discredit a witness – s. 145/155 of the 1872 Act, have to be carefully applied in a given case – Purpose of the cross examination of a witness is to bring contradictions in the two statements of the witness – Rural setting, the degree of articulation of such a witness in a court of law are relevant considerations while evaluating the credibility of such witness – Lengthy cross-examination of witness may invariably result in contradictions – However, these contradictions not always sufficient to discredit a witness – Evidence Act, 1872 – ss. 145/155. [Paras 20 and 22] Witness – Injured eye-witness – Evidentiary value:
Held: Statement of an injured eye-witness is an important piece of evidence which cannot be easily discarded by a Court – Minor discrepancies do not matter. [Para 26]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1963 – s. 161 – Statement given to police during investigation under – Evidentiary value: Held: Cannot be read as an “evidence” – It has limited applicability in a court of law as prescribed u/s. 162 – No doubt statement given before police during investigation u/s. 161 are previous statements u/s 145 of the Evidence Act and thus can be used to cross examine a witness – But only for limited purpose, to “contradict” such witness – Even if the defence is successful in contradicting a witness, it would not always mean that the contradiction in the two statements would result in totally discrediting the witness. [Paras 18 and 19]
LISTS OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Rammi v. State of M.P. (1999) 8 SCC 649: [1999] 3 Suppl. SCR 1; Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1959 SC 1012: [1959] Suppl. SCR 875; State of M.P. vs. Mansingh and Others (2003) 10 SCC 414: [2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 460 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
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.