Penal Code, 1860 – ss.147, 148 and 302 r/w s.149 – Faction rivalry – Murder – Appeal against conviction – On the fateful day, victim-deceased was lying on the cot in the courtyard and PWs 3 and 4 were sitting near him – PW-2 went inside and was taking meal – Appellants along with other accused armed with deadly weapons like swords, knife, sticks and motor cycle chain came to the courtyard of the house of deceased – A-3 and A-8 assaulted the deceased with sword on his head, A-5 attacked with sword on his legs, A-7 attacked with knife on his foot and legs – Other accused attacked deceased with motor cycle chain and sticks – PW- 3 and 4 got frightened and ran inside the house and stood near the window and witnessed the incident – Deceased was grievously injured and was rushed to hospital where he succumbed to the injuries – Trial court held that prosecution was not able to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted all the accused – High Court held that evidence of PWs 2 to 4 as to the overt act of accused was consistent and corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of weapons and reversed the acquittal of all accused except A-2 – On appeal, plea of appellants was that evidence of PW-2 was not believable as he was present in the house and did not go to rescue his brother and remained mute spectator – Held: Evidence of witness is not to be disbelieved simply because he has not reacted in a particular manner – Likewise, the relationship of PW-2 with the deceased cannot be the reason for doubting the testimony of PW-2 – Medical evidence also lent assurance to the evidence of PWs 2 to
4 – Prompt registration of FIR and recovery of incriminating weapons on disclosure statements of accused also strengthened the prosecution case – Trial court did not properly appreciate the evidence and its findings are perverse – When the approach of the trial court is perverse, in an appeal against the order of acquittal, a duty is cast upon the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence – As observed by the High Court, the trial court gave importance to insignificant aspects like “smearing of the thighs and legs of the body with mud” and the conduct of the witnesses as to why they have not reacted in a particular manner and while doing so, the trial court failed to appreciate the substratum of the prosecution case – High Court on being satisfied that the conclusion reached by the trial court was erroneous reversed the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court – There is no ground to interfere with the judgment of the High Court – The conviction of the appellants under s.302 r/w s.149 is confirmed and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon each of them is confirmed.
Criminal Law – Evidence – FIR – Non-mention of names of eye-witnesses in FIR – Effect on prosecution case – Evidence of PWs 3 and 4 is sought to be assailed on the ground that their names were not mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR) and that they are interested witnesses – Held: Deceased was critically injured and when he was taken to the police station, on seeing his serious condition, deceased was sent to the hospital along with police constable – PW-2 remained in the police station to lodge the complaint and his statement was recorded – His brother having been critically injured, PW-2 must have been in a disturbed mind and must have been in a hurry to rush to the hospital to save his brother – Thus, non-mention of the names of eye witnesses (PWs 3 and 4) in the FIR should be examined in the situation in which PW-2 was placed – FIR..
Evidence – Reaction of witness in a particular manner – Held: On witnessing a crime, each person reacts in his own way and their evidence cannot be doubted on the ground that the witness has not acted in a particular manner – Witness.
Appeal – Appeal against acquittal – Scope of interference, discussed.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 FIR is not an encyclopedia which is expected to contain all the details of the prosecution case. It may be sufficient if the broad facts of the prosecution case about the occurrence appear. Omission as to the names of the assailants or the witnesses may not all the times be fatal to the prosecution, if the FIR is lodged without delay. Unless there are indications of fabrication, the court cannot reject the prosecution case as given in the FIR merely because of omission. In the instant case, FIR was registered without delay and prompt registration of FIR itself lends assurance to the prosecution case. The object of the FIR is to set the law in motion. Omission to give the names of assailants or the names of witnesses in the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case. [Para 14] [276-A-C]
1.2 Evidence of PWs 3 and 4 is assailed on the ground that PWs 3 and 4 have not gone to the rescue of the deceased and it is quite unbelievable that on seeing the accused who were armed with weapons, both of them went inside the house. In their evidence, PWs 3 and 4 have stated that on seeing number of accused armed with deadly weapons got frightened and went inside the house and stood near the window and saw the occurrence. Their evidence cannot be doubted on the ground that they did not intervene in the attack nor made attempts to save the deceased. On witnessing a crime, each person reacts in his own way and their evidence cannot be doubted on the ground that the witness has not acted in a particular manner. The evidence of PWs 3 and 4 cannot be doubted merely because they have not acted in a particular manner. [Para 15] [276-D-F]
1.3 While appreciating the evidence of witness, approach must be whether the evidence of witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth and consistent with the prosecution case or to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the case. Their evidence cannot be doubted merely because they belong to opposite faction. All that is required is that their evidence is to be scrutinized with care and caution. On testing the evidence of PWs 2 to 4, the High Court found that their evidence is consistent and credit worthy. There is no reason to take a different view. The evidence of PWs 2 to 4 is corroborated by medical evidence. Further, PW-14 opined that nineteen to fourteen injuries could have been caused by swords. Oral evidence of PWs 2 to 4 is thus corroborated by the medical evidence. PW-14 conducted the post-mortem has noticed that “half of the stomach with rice is not digested”. PW-14 opined that the deceased died within two hours of his last meal which again is consistent with the evidence of PWs 2 to 4. Medical evidence of PW-14 lends assurance to the evidence of PWs 2 to 4. [Paras 17 and 18] [277-C-F]
2. PW-16, Investigating Officer had recovered blood-stained quilt from the scene of occurrence i.e. courtyard of house of the deceased and also blood-stained mud and sample mud. Chemical Analysis Report showed presence of ‘A’ group blood in the quilt. While narrating the occurrence, eye witnesses have stated that after the attack, the deceased had fallen down from the cot; in that course, thighs and legs of the deceased might have been smeared with mud. The presence of mud on the thighs and legs therefore does not raise doubts about the prosecution case. This is too insignificant a fact to give importance so as to disbelieve and discard the entire prosecution case as such. [Para 20] [278-C-E]
3. In an appeal against the order of acquittal, the appellate court would be slow to disturb the findings of the trial court which had the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses. In an appeal against the order of acquittal, there is no embargo for reappreciating the evidence and to take a different view; but there must be strong circumstances to reverse the order of acquittal. As observed by the High Court, the trial court gave importance to insignificant aspects like “smearing of the thighs and legs of the body with mud” and the conduct of the witnesses as to why they have not reacted in a particular manner and while doing so, the trial court failed to appreciate the substratum of the prosecution case. The High Court on being satisfied that the conclusion reached by the trial court was erroneous reversed the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court. [Paras 22, 25] [278-G-H; 280-E-G]
Mohabbat v. State of M.P. (2009) 13 SCC 630 : [2009]
1 SCR 883 ; Rana Partap v. State of Haryana (1983) 3 SCC 327 ; Chanrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 : [2007] 2 SCR 630 ; Kallu alias Masih and Others v. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313 : [2006] 1 SCR 201 – 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.