Goverdhan & Anr. vs State of Chhattisgarh

2.1. The evidence which has emerged is that the father PW-5 came to the scene after the assailants appellants had fled – As far as the mother PW-10 is concerned, on seeing the assault she ran inside to wake up her husband and when they came out, the assailants had fled – It cannot be considered to be highly unnatural for a woman not rushing to intervene and instead seek the help of a male member (her husband) when there were two persons with deadly weapons assaulting her. [Para 86]

2.2. The evidence of PW-10, the sole eye witness, a hapless rustic illiterate woman visited with the vicissitude and tragedy of her son being fatally assaulted by co-villagers before her own eyes, has withstood intensive cross examination and judicial scrutiny – She has answered the questions put to her during her cross examination with spontaneity without any jitteriness and her response was natural and not elusive and prevaricating, which all are signs of truthfulness of the witness – Therefore, her testimony is trustworthy and reliable – Her evidence finds corroboration from the admissible part of the evidence of the complainant (PW-6), and her husband (PW-5) even though they had turned hostile, and the medical evidence, evidence of the Investigating Officer and other official witnesses. [Para 87]

3. The Prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were responsible for the death of the deceased, for which they were convicted by the trial court under Section 302 IPC – There is no glaring illegality or perversity in the findings arrived at the trial court and the High Court causing any grave miscarriage of justice to the appellants. [Paras 88, 89]

4. The motive for committing the crime has not been clearly established and proved – However, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had caused the death of the deceased fully knowing that the bodily injuries caused by the appellants were likely to cause death as the appellants were armed with deadly weapons, therefore, the appellants are convicted under Part I of Section 304 IPC – Appellants have already undergone 10 years 3 months of incarceration – Under the facts and circumstances, interest of justice will be served if the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. [Paras 90, 91, 93 and 94]

Evidence – Standard of proof in a criminal case is not proof beyond all doubts but only beyond reasonable doubt – Contradistinction to requirement of proof based on preponderance of probabilities as in case of civil proceedings. [Para 20]

Evidence – FIR – Appreciation of:

Held: Though the FIR is not a piece of substantive evidence, especially, when the Complainant, i.e., PW-6 did not fully support the contents of the FIR, yet, it cannot be totally ignored and is to be treated as a relevant circumstance if the same is proved by other prosecution witness, in this case by PW-14, the SHO who recorded the report in the form of FIR as stated to him by the complainant. [Para 30]

Evidence – Armed assault leading to death – Noting made by the doctor on the medical record – Appreciation of: Held: Though the medical report was not made immediately after the incident, it was made without much time gap and it was made almost contemporaneously with the incident – Further, the medical record was in conformity with the FIR filed by the complainant, PW-6, thus corroborating the contents of the FIR in which the appellants were named as the assailants – Since the FIR was filed soon after the incident occurred and the names of the appellants were again mentioned in the medical record as the assailants within a very short span of time, there was hardly any scope for fabrication of evidence and falsely implicating the appellants in the case, as they were already named in the FIR. [Para 65]

Evidence – Armed assault leading to death – Hostile witness – Seizure witnesses turning hostile – Effect:

Held: The seizure witnesses have not denied their signatures on the seizure memo and admitted putting their signatures – Though both the witnesses have denied having any knowledge of the actual recovery of the weapons at the instance of the appellants, their denials do not appear convincing – However, since the IO of the case, PW-15 had proved the said seizure memos, there is no reason to hold that there was no seizure that was affected merely because the two seizure witnesses had turned hostile. [Paras 68, 71] Evidence – In a trial, the assessment of evidence cannot be made in a technical manner – Realities of life must be kept in mind for arriving at the truth. [Para 66]

Evidence – Non recovery of the weapon of crime – Is not fatal to the prosecution case and is not sine qua non for conviction, if there are direct reliable witnesses. [Para 70] Evidence – Testimony of police personnel involved in recovery of articles – Appreciation of. [Para 71]

Evidence – Armed assault leading to death – Untruthful and evasive testimony of the neighbours:

Held: The testimonies of some neighbours were highly unnatural and untruthful and they appear to be reluctant to come up with the truth in order to protect the appellants – Because of the unnaturalness of the testimonies of these neighbours before the court, which defy human behaviour, the reasonable inference one can draw is that these witnesses have been won over – The fact that all these witnesses had close association with the acquitted father of the two appellants on account of consumption of ganja also clearly indicates the influence the latter may have on these witnesses. [Paras 73, 75] Evidence – Hostile witness – Merely because the witnesses turn hostile does not necessarily mean that their evidence has to be thrown out entirely. [Para 76]

Evidence – Armed assault leading to death – Role of acquitted accused not coming out clearly – Appellants-convicts cannot be placed at par with the case of acquitted accused: Held: Just because the father of the Appellants was acquitted will not warrant their acquittal as there is sufficient and cogent material evidence against them to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt whereas the case against the acquitted father of the appellants is doubtful. [Para 85]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.280 – Demeanour of witness while under examination – Assessment by trial court – Ought not be ignored by the Appellate Court. [Para 82] Words and Phrases – “reasonable doubt” – Meaning of reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. [Paras 21, 22]