Ranbir Penal Code – s.302 – Prosecution case that there was a scuffle between the appellant-accused and ‘A’ over some payment issue – Same day in evening, appellant-accused assaulted ‘A’ on his head in presence of his father-PW-9 – ‘A’ and PW-9 rushed to clinic for first aid and then went to police station and lodged an oral complaint – Head injury resulted in the death of ‘A’ – Trial Court acquitted accused – However, High Court reversed the order of acquittal into conviction u/ss. 302/341 RPC – Appellant-accused contended that the entire case depended on the veracity of evidence of PW-9 but he was an interested witness and therefore his evidence was not reliable – On appeal, held: Trial Court adopted hyper technical approach which resulted in the acquittal of the accused – FIR lodged on the basis of the oral complaint made by the deceased at the police station was a reliable document and was made soon after the incident – The subsequent statement of the deceased at the hospital as recorded by the I.O. was duly corroborated by the evidence of PW-9 – PWs 2 & 10 also corroborated the testimony of PW-9 and proved the attack as PWs 2 & 10 had heard the same from deceased himself – PW10 had deposed to have witnessed the scuffle between the accused and the deceased at the latter’s shop in the daytime and also the threat given by the accused – PWs 2 &
10 had also witnessed the recovery of weapon of offence (iron rod) at the instance of accused, as the weapon was recovered by the police in their presence – Presence of PWs 2 & 10 at time of recovery of weapon and their depositions corroborate and strengthens the case of prosecution – Further, Doctor-PW13 deposed that cause of death was head injury resulted by a blunt object and further revealed that deceased had narrated to him how he was assaulted – Postmortem report and the evidence of doctor-PW-13 fully corroborates with evidence of PW-9 – If the evidence of an eyewitness, though a close relative of the victim, inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration with minute material particulars – Testimony of father-PW-9 inspired confidence and the chain of events and circumstantial evidence thereof completely supports his statements which in turn strengthens the prosecution case with no manner of doubt – His evidence was intrinsically reliable and wholly trustworthy – A conspectus of all the material conclude that the prosecution was successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Appeal – Powers of appellate Court – Held: The power of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal is same as that of an appeal against conviction – But, in an appeal against acquittal, the Court has to bear in mind that the presumption of innocence is in favour of the accused and it is strengthened by the order of acquittal – At the same time, appellate Court will not interfere with the order of acquittal mainly because two views are possible, but only when the High Court feels that the appreciation of evidence is based on erroneous considerations and when there is manifest illegality in the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court. Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the instant case, according to PW9 (father of the deceased), the deceased had supplied some G.I. tin sheets to one person and the accused stood as guarantor for its payment. On the day of occurrence, when the deceased demanded to pay the money from the accused, he got annoyed and caught hold of the neck of the deceased and started beating him by which some bruises also appeared on the right side of his neck. At that point of time, (PW1), (PW12) and (PW10) were present there and separated them. The accused then threatened the deceased that he would see him anytime. After the closure of shop, when deceased was going home along with his father, on their way the accused holding an iron rod in his hands, appeared from opposite direction, intercepted their way and abused them. When they moved forward, the accused hit the deceased on his head with the rod due to which he fell down with bleeding. [Para 17][1132E-G]
2. The evidence of (PW2) and (PW10) also corroborate the testimony of PW9 and prove the attack as PWs 2 & 10 having heard the same from the deceased himself. PW10 has categorically deposed to have witnessed the scuffle between the accused and deceased at the latter’s shop in the daytime, and also the threat given by the accused. He further stated that the deceased was taken to the hospital on his motor cycle and he accompanied the deceased throughout till the last rites of the deceased. PWs 2 and 10 further stated that they have also witnessed the recovery of weapon of offence (iron rod) at the instance of accused, as the weapon was recovered by the police in their presence. The said recovery of weapon in the presence of PWs 2 & 10 and their depositions would therefore corroborate and strengthens the case of prosecution. [Para 18][1133-A-D]
3. The Doctor opined that the cause of death was head injury resulted by a blunt object within the duration of 12 hours. It was specifically deposed by the Doctor in his evidence that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were sufficient to cause death. It was further revealed that while undergoing initial treatment at the hospital, the deceased narrated to him that when he was going towards his home, someone had assaulted. The postmortem report and the evidence of Doctor (PW13) fully corroborates with the evidence of PW9. [Para 19][1133-G-H; 1134-A-B]
4. If the evidence of an eyewitness, though a close relative of the victim, inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration with minute material particulars. It is no doubt true that the Courts must be cautious while considering the evidence of interested witnesses. In his evidence, the description of the incident by PW9 clearly portrays the way in which the accused attacked the deceased causing fatal head injury as propounded by the prosecution. The testimony of the father of deceased (PW9) must be appreciated in the background of the entire case. [Para 27][1136-E-F]
5. The testimony of PW9 inspires confidence, and the chain of events and the circumstantial evidence thereof completely supports his statements which in turn strengthens the prosecution case with no manner of doubt. PW9 is a ‘natural’ witness to the incident. On a careful scrutiny, evidence of PW9 is intrinsically reliable and wholly trustworthy. [Para 28][1136-G-H]
6. When analyzing the evidence available on record, Court should not adopt hyper technical approach but should look at the broader probabilities of the case. Basing on the minor contradictions, the Court should not reject the evidence in its entirety. Sometimes, even in the evidence of truthful witness, there may appear certain contradictions basing on their capacity to remember and reproduce the minute details. Particularly in the criminal cases, from the date of incident till the day they give evidence in the Court, there may be gap of years. Hence the Courts have to take all these aspects into consideration and weigh the evidence. The discrepancies and contradictions which do not go to the root of the matter, credence shall not be given to them. In any event, the paramount consideration of the Court must be to do substantial justice. The trial Court has adopted an hyper technical approach which resulted in the acquittal of the accused. In the present case, there was manifest irregularity in the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court. The High Court based on sound principles of criminal jurisprudence, has interfered with the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court and convicted the accused as the prosecution was successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 30, 32][1137B-D; 1138-C-D]
Dalip Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab [1954] 1 SCR 145; Masalti v. State of U.P. [1964] 8 SCR 133; Harbans Kaur & Anr. v. State of Haryana 2005 CriLJ 2199; Padam Singh v. State of U.P. (2000) 1 SCC 621 : [1999]
5 Suppl. SCR 59 – relied on.
Rathinam @ Rathinam v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (2011) 11 SCC 140 : [2010] 11 SCR 871; Bindeshwari Prasad Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. (2002) 6 SCC 650 : [2002] 1 Suppl. SCR 495; Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (2010) 13 SCC 657 : [2010] 15 SCR 452; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 : [1974] 1 SCR 489; State of U.P. v. Kishanpal & Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 73 : [2008] 11 SCR 1048; Nallabothu Venkaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2002) 7 SCC 117 : [2002] 1 Suppl. SCR 606; Jarnail Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab (2009) 9 SCC
719 : [2009] 13 SCR 774; Shivaji Genu Mohite v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1973 SC 55 – 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.