Penal Code, 1860: ss.147, 148, 149, 342, 448, 325, 326, 436, 379, 307 and 302 – Political rivalry – Mob assault – Use of sharp and pointed weapons – Death of 5 persons and serious injuries to several persons – Prosecution case was that the offender party broke into the houses of the locality, destroyed household, stole valuables and set the houses on fire and thereafter assaulted complainant party members causing death of 5 persons and serious injuries to 24 persons – Acquittal by trial court on benefit of doubt – High Court found no error in acquittal order – Complainant’s appeal against acquittal – Held: The observation of courts below that the injuries must have been suffered in a stampede is not convincing as there was no reason for only one group of people to have sustained injuries in the alleged stampede – The contradictions and improvements were minor in nature – It is natural to have certain minor variations in the evidence of eye-witnesses, when a large number of people had gathered to assault a smaller group of people – In such a scenario, it is not possible to meticulously observe all the actions of each and every accused – The overall evidence of these witnesses, prima facie, appeared untainted – Certain exaggerations, improvements and embellishments would not make the entire prosecution story doubtful – There were as many as 24 injured eye witnesses in the case and their presence cannot be doubted – Presence of the witnesses on the spot was also not seriously doubted by the defence during the cross-examination – In this situation, the High Court did not apply its judicial mind in determining whether the judgment of the trial court was perverse inasmuch as the entire body of evidence was discarded, simply on the basis that some of the witnesses had deposed for the first time before the Court – High Court also did not at all consider the evidence concerning charges other than murder – Although, the charges were framed on questions such as burning houses, unlawful assembly, etc., the evidence on these questions was entirely overlooked and no finding was made by the trial court as well as the High Court – High Court thus failed to exercise its revisional jurisdiction in accordance with established principles – Matter remitted to High Court to decide the revision petition on merits in accordance with law.
Revision: Exercise of revisional jurisdiction – Where the material evidence was overlooked either by the trial Court or by the appellate Court or the order is passed by considering irrelevant evidence, the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court – Penal Code, 1860.
Evidence: Embellishments or exaggerations in the testimony – Evidentiary value of the testimony – Held: The testimony of a witness cannot be discarded in toto merely due to the presence of embellishments or exaggerations – The doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means “false in one thing, false in everything” is inapplicable in the Indian scenario,where the tendency to exaggerate is common – Doctrine.
Evidence: In cases involving a large number of offenders and a large number of victims, the evidence of only two or three witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident is sufficient to sustain conviction.
Evidence: Ocular and medical evidence – Conflict between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence – Medical evidence cannot override the evidence of ocular testimony of the witnesses – Ocular testimony to prevail – Where the eye witnesses account is found to be trustworthy and credible, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. Constitution of India: Art.136 – Scope of – Held: The restriction as contained under s.401(3) of the Cr.P.C. on the High Court cannot restrict the powers of the Supreme Court under Art.136 of the Constitution – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.401(3).
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It is open for the Supreme Court to review the entire material and there is no limitation on its jurisdiction under Article 136 to come to a just conclusion if it determines that the High Court’s view was not reasonable. The restriction as contained under Section 401(3) of the Cr.P.C. on the High Court cannot restrict the powers of the Supreme Court under Article
136 of the Constitution. [Para 10] [716-B-C]
Dharma v. Nirmal Singh 1996 AIR SC 1136:
[1996] 2 SCR 115 ; State of Rajasthan v. Islam (2011)
6 SCC 343 : [2011] 6 SCR 988 – relied on.
2. In cases involving a large number of offenders and a large number of victims, the evidence of only two or three witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident is sufficient to sustain conviction. The testimonies of Pws 5, 7 and 14 shows that there was no significant variation or major contradiction in their testimonies. The presence of the witnesses on the spot was not seriously doubted by the defence during the cross-examination. The Court should not expect from the witnesses to depose in a parrot-like fashion. However, the overall evidence of these witnesses, prima facie, appears to be untainted. It is also evident that these testimonies were consistent on material facts, such as that on the day of the incident, CPI(M) workers threatened IPF workers, who hid in PW2’s house. Thereafter, a mob of CPI(M) workers assembled outside the house, which was set on fire to smoke out the hiding persons. When they tried hiding in PW9’s house, that house was set on fire as well. Finally, the IPF supporters ran out, at which point they were assaulted by CPI(M) persons. All the witnesses may not be consistent on each and every detail, such as who set the house on fire and who hit who with which weapon, etc. It may be true that their depositions are found to contain exaggerations such as the mutilation of deceased’s penis, which was found to be intact upon medical examination. However, such embellishments and inconsistencies do not go to the root of the matter. It is the duty of the Court to separate the chaff from the grain. There are as many as 24 injured eye witnesses in the case and their presence cannot be doubted. [Paras 11, 12, 13, 16, 17] [716-F-G; 718-G-H; 719-A, B-E]
Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202 :
[1964] SCR 133 ; Nisar Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 SC 366 : [1957] SCR 657 ; Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar AIR 1965 SC 277 ; Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab, (2003) 7 SCC 643 : [2003] 2 Suppl. SCR
35 ; Narain v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2004) 2 SCC
455 : [2004] 2 SCR 82 ; Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2018) 6 SCC 433 ; Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81 : [2002] 3 SCR 1 ; Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 4 SCC 752 ; State of Punjab v. Hari Singh (1974) 4 SCC 552 – relied on.
3.1 Although, the charges had been framed on questions such as burning houses, unlawful assembly, etc., the evidence on these questions was entirely overlooked and no finding was made by the trial Court as well as the High Court. The Trial Court has overlooked the entire evidence related to burning of houses, on the sole ground that the burnt articles were not produced before the Court. On the other hand, the burnt articles were seized and produced before the Court. [Para 18] [722-C-D]
3.2 So far as the issue of unlawful assembly and common object of the unlawful assembly is concerned, the Court generally could determine those aspects based on the evidence on record. In the matter on hand, 36 eye-witnesses were available. According to the case of the prosecution, all the accused came in a group to the house of PW2, and PW9, and torched these houses knowing fully well that the IPF party men had assembled in those houses. Prima facie, the Court can visualize the common object of unlawful assembly from this evidence. The Court cannot expect the prosecution to prove its case by leading separate evidence with respect to unlawful assembly and common object. If those factors can be found out based on the available material on record, there is no reason as to why the Courts should ignore the same. The non-consideration of such vital issues by the High Court, without which a question before the Court could not have been satisfactorily determined, has led to injustice of a serious and substantial character, warranting interference of this Court and remand of the matter to the High Court for rehearing. With regard to the conflict between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence, the High Court has ignored the fact that lathis were also used while assaulting along with sharp edge weapons. Moreover, it is by now well settled that the medical evidence cannot override the evidence of ocular testimony of the witnesses. [Paras 19, 20, 21] [722-E-H; 723-C]
State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal (1988) 4 SCC 302 : [1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 391 – relied on.
4. Where the material evidence was overlooked either by the trial Court or by the appellate Court or the order is passed by considering irrelevant evidence, the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court. In the matter on hand, material evidence was overlooked by the trial court and the High Court was incorrect in observing that the witnesses deposed for the first time before the court. Five deaths took place. The Courts observed that the injuries must have been suffered in a stampede. There is no reason as to why only one group of people would sustain injuries in the alleged stampede, if any. Thus, the theory of stampede also prima facie may not be available to the defendant having regard to the evidence on record. [Paras 24] [724-G-H; 725-A, B-C]
Sheetala Prasad v. Shree Kant (2010) 2 SCC 190 : [2009] 16 SCR 686 – 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.