Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302 r/w 149, 148,123 and 447 – Trial court convicted accused persons under different provisions of IPC including ss. 302 r/w 149, 148,123 and 447 – Prosecution had examined ten witnesses before trial court – High Court upheld the judgment and sentence passed by trial court – Propriety of conviction and sentence challenged on the ground that inter alia, witnesses PW1 to PW-6 were related to each other – Prosecution failed to examine any independent and impartial witness and there were material contradictions in the depositions made by the witnesses – Held: Court in appeal may reassess the evidence when there has been an improper reception or rejection of evidence, which if discarded or received would leave the conviction unsupportable – Court may also interfere in a case where there has been a misreading of vital evidence or the Court omits to notice the important points in favour of the accused – In the instant case, there were variations in the evidence of PW-6 who was the first informant and evidence of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-4 regarding as to who gave fatal blows to the deceased – Trial court as well as High Court rightly did not rely on the evidence of these witnesses who were highly inconsistent with each other in holding the concerned accused guilty – PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 were not eye witnesses and their deposition did not lend any credence to the prosecution case on the point of who actually stabbed the deceased person – The inherent contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution-witnesses did not prove the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside. Evidence – Credibility of related/interested/partisan witnesses – Just because the witnesses are related/interested/ partisan witnesses, their testimonies cannot be disregarded – However, when the witnesses are related/interested, their testimonies have to be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection – In the instant case, it was clear from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that all the witnesses were related to the deceased and to each other, there was not a single independent witness for prosecution – Moreover, there was contradiction and inconsistency in their testimonies – In such circumstances, the evidence could not be relied upon to convict the accused persons.
Evidence: Inconsistent testimonies – Effect on prosecution case – Courts have to label as to which category a discrepancy can be categorized – Material discrepancies corrode the credibility of the prosecution’s case while insignificant discrepancies do not do so – In the present case there are material discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses and the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution – The evidence of the prosecution is wholly unreliable and does not prove the alleged offences against the accusedappellants. Law of evidence: Material discrepancy in the evidence – Appreciation thereof.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. There are variations in the evidence of PW-6 who was the first informant in the instant case and the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 regarding as to who gave the fatal blows to deceased. The finding of the (trial court) Fast Track Court that the evidence of PW-6 finds corroboration with the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is erroneous and cannot be sustained. The Fast Track Court as well as the High Court ought not to have relied on the evidence of these witnesses which are highly inconsistent with each other in holding the concerned accused guilty. [Para 41][793-H; 794-A, D-E]
2. The evidence of PW-3, who was the brother of the deceased, also does not support the case of the prosecution since PW-3 was not an eye-witness but was merely a hearsay witness who, in his deposition stated that he was informed by PW-4 that accused Md. Moyan Ali stabbed the deceased On examining the deposition of this witness PW-3, it is clear that the same is not corroborated by the evidence of any other witness such as PW-1 and PW-2 who stated that accused Md. Jabbar Ali stabbed the deceased and PW-6 who stated that accused Md. Sahed Ali stabbed the deceased. The finding of the Fast Track Court that the evidence of PW-3 lends support to the correctness of the prosecution case is therefore incorrect. Thus, the evidence of PW-3 in no way lends succor to the case of the prosecution. [Para 42][794-E-H]
3. PW-4, who is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. As per his own deposition, he went to the place of occurrence after he saw many people gathered there. According to him, accusedMH assaulted the deceased, however, during his crossexamination, he clearly stated that he did not know as to who told him that accused-MH stabbed the deceased. PW-5 was also not an eye-witness to the incident of deceased being killed by the accused persons. He has failed to state which one of the accused persons actually stabbed the deceased. The evidence of PW-5 thus, does not lend any credence to the case of the prosecution. [Paras 43, 44][795-A-D]
4. There is no clinching evidence so as to prove beyond reasonable doubt the case of the prosecution as there are contradictions in the evidence/depositions of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5. Moreover, the evidence of PW-6, the informant is inconsistent with the depositions of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5. We find that the inherent contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution-witnesses does not prove the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. [Para 46][795-E-G]
5. Just because the witnesses are related/interested/partisan witnesses, their testimonies cannot be disregarded, however, it is also true that when the witnesses are related/interested, their testimonies have to be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection. In the instant case, it is seen from the testimonies of the prosecutyion witnesses that all the witnesses are related to the deceased and to each other. It is necessary to state here that the evidence of the related witnesses can be rejected if there are material contradictions and inconsistencies found in their testimonies. It is observed that there have been material improvements in the testimony of PW-1. PW1- in his examination deposed that accused-MH stabbed deceased however in his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he had not told the police that accused-MH stabbed deceased. The same is an improvement in the testimony which has to be borne in mind. All the witnesses have given contradictory versions as to who gave the fatal blow to deceased and the same amounts to material contradictions. Owing to the substantial and material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the evidence of the prosecution is considered wholly unreliable. Additionally, the prosecution has examined only related witnesses and not a single independent witness. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence does not prove the alleged offences against the accused-appellants. [Paras 48, 51, 52 and 54][796-C; 797-B-E; 798-A-B]
6. Another aspect that this Court would like to look into is as to what extent this Court can reappreciate and reappraise the evidence on record. In a catena of cases, it has been held that though in cases of concurrent findings of fact, this Court will ordinarily not interfere with the said findings, this Court is empowered to do so if in case it finds inter alia, misreading of the evidence or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse . In the present case at hand as well, the finding of conviction was recorded overlooking the material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and therefore the said conviction deserves to be set-aside [Paras 55 and 56][798-B-D; 798-D-E]
Saravanabhavan v. State of Madras AIR 1966 SC 1273; Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 159 : [1952] SCR 526; Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381 : [2002] 3 Suppl. SCR 183; Raju alias Balachandran and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 12 SCC 701 : [2012] 11 SCR 109; Ganapathi and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2018) 5 SCC 549 : [2018] 3 SCR 51; State of Rajasthan v. Kalki & Anr. (1981) 2 SCC 752 : [1981] 3 SCR 504; Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh v. State of Gujarat (2019) 6 SCC 535 : [2019] 7 SCR 309 – relied on. Sohrab v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1972) 3 SCC 751 : [1973] 1 SCR 472; Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (1983) 3 SCC 217 : [1983] 3 SCR 280; State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony (1985) 1 SCC 505; Prithu @ Prithi Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2009) 11 SCC 588 : [2009] 2 SCR 765; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chhaakki Lal (2019) 12 SCC 326 : [2018] 12 SCR 184; Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of Uttar (1981) 2 SCC 166 : [1981] 2 SCR 771; Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana (2012) 6 SCC 204 : [2012]
4 SCR 408; State of Maharashtra v. Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple (1984) 1 SCC 446 – 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.