Criminal Trial: Evidence – Appreciation of – Discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses – Effect of – On facts, the appellant-accused persons armed with various weapons assaulted the victim, and also fired gun shots, resulting in his death – Victim was accompanied by his brother, his sister, his wife and PW-2 – When they all came forward to save victim’s life, they were also assaulted and in the assault PW-2 sufferred gunshot injury – Conviction and sentence of the appellants for offences punishable u/s. 302/149, s. 307/149 and s.148 IPC by the courts below, on basis of the testimonies of an eye witness and an injured witness, which were corroborated from the recoveries made on the basis of memorandum of the accused – On appeal, held: Trial court and the High Court failed to take into consideration the vital discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses – From the perusal of the evidence as well as the findings of the trial court itself, it is clear that PW-1 cannot be said to be an eye witness – Though, PW-2 is an injured eye-witness, there are serious discrepancies and inconsistencies with regard to time of the injuries sustained and time of medical examination – Concerned doctor in his evidence, changed his stance on several occasions, his testimony totally contrary to that of both the prosecution witness – As such the possibility of some fabrication in the injury certificate cannot be rejected – Furthermore, not safe to base the conviction on the sole testimony of the injured witness – Corroboration sought by the prosecution with regard to alleged recoveries of the weapons used in the crime also not free from doubt – Neither the station diary entry with regard to telephonic intimation given by the informant brought on record nor informant was examined – Though independent witnesses were available, the prosecution has failed to examine them – As such the possibility of the prosecution not bringing on record the real genesis of the incident cannot be ruled out – In view thereof, the appellants entitled for benefit of doubt – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302/149, s. 307/149 and s.148.
Constitution of India: Art. 136 – Concurrent findings of fact – Interference with – Reappreciation of evidence – When – Held: Though in cases of concurrent findings of fact this Court would not ordinarily interfere with the said findings, in exceptional circumstances, this Court is empowered to do so – If this Court finds that the appreciation of evidence and findings is vitiated by any error of law or procedure or found contrary to the principles of natural justice, errors of record and misreading of the evidence, or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse, this Court has power to reappreciate the evidence. Jarnail Singh and Others v. State of Punjab (2009) 9 SCC 719 : [2009] 13 SCR 774; Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 10 SCC 259 : [2010] 13 SCR 311; Smt. Dalbir Kaur and Others v. State of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 158 : [1977] 1 SCR 280;
Ramashish Rai v. Jagdish Singh (2005) 10 SCC 498; Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras [1957] SCR 981; Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Prakash (1972) 1 SCC 249 : [1972] 2 SCR 765; Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham and Another (1979) 2 SCC 297 : [1979] 3 SCR 482; Mithilesh Kumari and Another v. Prem Behari Khare (1989) 2 SCC 95 : [1989] 1 SCR 621; State of U.P. v. Babul Nath (1994) 6 SCC 29 : [1994] 2 Suppl. SCR 598; Pattakkal Kunhikoya (Dead) By LRs. v. Thoopiyakkal Koya and Another (2000) 2 SCC 185 : [1999] 5 Suppl. SCR 371; Ashoksinh
Jayendrasinh v. State of Gujarat (2019) 6 SCC 535 : [2019] 7 SCR 309 – 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.