Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302 and 324 – Conviction by courts below – Prosecution case was that the appellant-accused and the victim-deceased had a verbal spat – On fateful day, appellant came to spot and picked up fight with PW-1 – In the process of interference to prevent assault, PW-2 also got injured – Soon thereafter when victim-deceased appeared at the spot, the appellant pushed him into the canal and hit him with wooden log on his head – Villagers prevented the appellant from assaulting deceased thereby causing injuries to him – Both appellant and the deceased were shifted to hospital where deceased succumbed to injuries – Trial court convicted appellant and awarded life imprisonment – High Court upheld the same – On appeal, held: Most of the prosecution witnesses were hearsay witnesses – They had deposed that both the appellant and the deceased participated in the fight with wooden logs and appellant also got head injury at the hands of deceased – But, prosecution did not produce his medical record, nor the Doctor was examined on the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant – In the circumstances in which the deceased, appellant and also PW-2 got injuries, it was obligatory on the part of IO. to examine the doctor and seek information about the injuries sustained by the accused and the same should have been made part of the record – The injuries alleged to have been caused to appellant were not properly explained, rather an alternative story was set up wherein the injuries were attributed to mob justice, such plea without substantive evidence cannot be accepted – Had there been a strong motive to do away with the life of deceased, generally there would have been more fatal injuries caused on the deceased not by a log but by utilizing more dangerous weapons – These circumstances show that there is no reason to believe that motive was entertained by the accused in the back drop of quarrel that took place prior to the date of occurrence – In the absence of positive proof of such motive, prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence awarded by courts below set aside.
Investigation: Role of Investigating authority – The investigative authority has a responsibility to investigate in a fair manner and elicit truth – The concerned authorities to take up the investigation in a neutral manner, without having regards to the ultimate result.
Criminal law: Injuries on the accused – A duty is cast on the prosecution to furnish proper explanation to the Court how the person who has been accused of assaulting the victim received injuries on his person in the same occurrence – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302 and 324.
Criminal law: Motive – Generally, in case prosecution desires to place motive of the accused as a circumstance, like any other incriminating circumstance, it should also be fully established – If the genesis of the motive of the occurrence is not proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses as to the occurrence could not be discarded only on the ground of absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy of reliance – Evidence.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Most of the prosecution witnesses are hearsay witnesses. Contrary to what complainant (PW-1) deposed, a combined reading of evidences of PWs 2, 3, 5, 15, 19 and 20 show that both the accused and the deceased participated in the fight with wooden logs, accused got head injury at the hands of deceased, PW-2 himself also received injury at the hands of accused while he was trying to protect PW-1 from assault of the accused. The police reached the place of occurrence within ten minutes of the occurrence, that is well before the arrival of ambulance. At that point of time, Police enquired PW-1, PW2 and other witnesses, drawn report, sketch map etc., and took their signatures and sent the injured persons to hospital. That sequence of incidents shows that already investigation was started by police. That means the information provided by PWs 1, 2 and other witnesses at about 6:30 P.M. at the place of occurrence should have ideally been the basis of the F.I.R. Whereas the F.I.R. shows thatththe information was received at police station at 9.30 p.m. on 20 August, 2009. The case involves a fight between two persons – accused and the deceased. Majority of the eye witnesses including PW-1, PW-3, have categorically stated that accused-appellant was the aggressor. There were at least three different versions which substantially weakens the prosecution’s case [Paras 19-23] [354-E-H; 355-C-E; 356-B-C]
2. On the point of suppression of genesis of the crime, PW20 (head constable) categorically stated that he was present before the Ambulance reached the place. Even though he was extensively cross-examined, he has not budged from his position that there was no recording of any statement before the Ambulance reached. On the contrary PW-2 categorically remarks that a statement was recorded by PW-20 before the ambulance arrived. Although the High Court has discredited the evidence of PW-2 as the part which provides the aforesaid details was on recalling after few days, therefore, in light of possibility of being won over, the credibility of the statement made by PW-2 needs to be viewed with this background fact. However, there seems to be no logic of such assumption, when the prosecution has not declared the witness as hostile and more so, when his narrative is corroborated by other witnesses. Therefore, PW-2’s evidence needs to be taken into fold. [Para 24] [356-C-E]
3. It is matter of record that the alleged accused-appellant, was arrested in a hurried manner after the day of the incident from the hospital. It is also stated that the police authorities in an unusual manner got the appellant discharged from the hospital and kept him illegally confined for a day. The action of investigating authority in pursuing the case in the manner which they have done must be rebuked. The High Court on this aspect, correctly noticed that the police authorities have botched up the arrest for reasons best known to them. [Para 25] [356-E-F; 357-A]
4. The criminal justice must be above reproach. It is irrelevant whether the falsity lie in the statement of witnesses or the guilt of the accused. The investigative authority has a responsibility to investigate in a fair manner and elicit truth. In this case at hand, the aspect wherein the police has actively connived to suppress the facts, cannot be ignored or overlooked. Generally failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation in that regard shows that evidence of the prosecution witnesses relating to the incident is not true or at any rate not wholly true.[Paras 26, 27] [357-C-E, F]
Mohar Rai and Bharath Rai v. The State of Bihar 1968 CriLJ 1479 – relied on.
5. Admittedly, the accused-appellant was also injured in the same occurrence and he too was admitted in the hospital. The trial Court, instead of seeking proper explanation from the prosecution for the injuries sustained by the accused, appears to have simply believed what prosecution witnesses deposed in one sentence that the accused had sustained simple injuries only. In the circumstances in which the deceased, accused and also PW2 got injuries, it was obligatory on the part of I.O. to examine the Doctor and seek information about the injuries sustained by the accused and the same should have been made part of the record. [Paras 29, 30] [358-E-H; 359-A-B]
6. Motive of the accused to commit the crime is ascribed to the previous quarrel occasioned between the accused and the deceased during a drama at a village festival. Generally, in case prosecution desires to place motive of the accused as a circumstance, like any other incriminating circumstance, it should also be fully established. But in the case on hand, the evidence of direct witnesses is not satisfactory and on the other hand, it is demonstrated that the deceased hit the accused on his head with the wooden log besides the testimony from the eye witnesses that there was scuffle. In such a factual situation, certainly motive may act as a double-edged sword. [Para 31] [359-C-F]
7. There is absence of extreme cruelty, even if it assumed that accused hit the deceased with the log. This show that there is no reason to believe that motive was entertained by the accused in the back drop of quarrel that took place during drama at the village festival, prior to the date of occurrence. In as much as the prosecution laid the foundation for the commission of crime by the accused in the said quarrel as an element of motive, in the absence of proof of such motive, prosecution has to face the peril of failure in establishing that foundation. [Para 32] [359-F-H; 360-A]
8. As regards the other charge under Section 324 of IPC, for causing injuries to PW-2. In light of the deficiencies, it can be easily said that even the charge under Section 324 of IPC is not established. The injured witness himself has attributed the injury on him to the deceased, instead of the accused. In such a situation conviction of the accused on the charge of Section 324 cannot be sustained under law. [Para 33] [360-B-C]
9. Taking stock of the circumstances and depositions of prosecution witnesses in this case, it would be difficult to hold that prosecution has laid the case on real circumstances and proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Normally this Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, but in this case considering certain exceptional circumstances, this is a fit case for interference. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, definitely the benefit of doubt goes to the accused-appellant. The judgments of the Courts below awarding conviction and sentence to the accused-appellant requires to be set aside. [Paras 34, 35] [360-C, E-F] Parbhu v. Emperor AIR 1944 PC 73 – distinguished.
Lakshmi Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar 1976 CriLJ 1736 – relied on.
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.