Penal Code, 1860:
ss.148 and 302 r/w. s.149 – Conviction under – By courts below – Relying mainly on two eye-witnesses viz. PW10 and PW11 – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: There are many material contractions in the evidence of PW10 and PW11 – There is absence of examination of many important witnesses – There is a possibility of concoction of prosecution story – Investigation also does not seem to be fair – Therefore, conviction by courts below based on the testimony of the witnesses was not correct – Accused are liable to be acquitted.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. There are many material contradictions in the statements of the two witnesses i.e. PW10 and PW11. A doubt is cast that these witnesses are prepared witnesses who have come out with a parrot like version as far as the incident itself is concerned but when it comes to the attending circumstances, their evidence falls apart and does not withstand the scrutiny of cross-examination. These witnesses have been improving their statements with the passage of time. There is also contradiction in the statement of these two witnesses as to who informed the villagers about the death of the deceased. [Paras 5, 10] [1050-F; 1052-G]
2. The manner in which the site plan was prepared clearly indicates that the investigation was not a fair investigation. [Para 12] [1053-D]
3. The versions of PW15 and that of PW10 are totally different. This casts a serious doubt on the prosecution story. Another factor is that a number of very important witnesses who should have been examined have not been examined. [Paras 16, 17] [1054-G; 1055-A]
4. The FIR has been recorded admittedly after visiting the spot by the police and, therefore, there is a possibility that the story could have been concocted after seeing the site and conferring with all the villagers. It has come on record that the deceased was not a very popular man. He had a lot of enemies. It has also come in evidence that almost all the witnesses have some criminal antecedents and some cases are pending against them. It may be true that there was enmity between the two sides. Enmity, as is often said is a double edged sword. It can be the motive but it can also be a reason to falsely implicate the other side. In the present case, keeping in view the various contradictions and the fact that in view of the contradictions it is difficult to rely upon the statements of PW-10 and PW-11 as well as PW-6 and PW-7, a doubt has been cast and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. The High Court and the Trial Court did not take into consideration these contradictions of the witnesses and relied upon the witnesses especially PW-10 and PW-11 without referring to the attending circumstances. [Paras 18 and 19] [1055-C-F]
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.