Penal Code, 1860 – s.302/34 – Arms Act, 1959 – s.27 – P.S. Case No. 127/89 was registered on 09.07.1989 arraying six persons as accused for committing murder of father of the informant (PW-8) – The Trial Court acquitted all the six persons, inter-alia, holding that testimonies of the witnesses cannot be believed – In appeal, the High Court sustained acquittal qua three accused persons, however, the other three accused-appellant herein were convicted for the offences as charged – Correctness: Held: 1. In view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations of the commission of murder by the appellants – Therefore, the findings as recorded by the High Court are not based on due appreciation of records but on misreading of evidence which cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside – Accordingly, the impugned judgment stands set aside – The order of the Trial Court stands restored. [Para 24]
2. The normal conduct of the son (PW-8) and other two nephews (PW-5 and PW-8) should have been to immediately report the incident to the nearest police station, however, in the present case no information was furnished by them for approximately 14 hours – All the eyewitnesses left the place of the occurrence after some time and later came back without intimating the other family members and villagers – The conduct raises serious questions, especially considering that PW–8, a key eyewitness, allegedly witnessed the brutal murder of his own father – Given these circumstances, it is perplexing and surprising as to why he refrained from reporting the incident immediately and bringing the deceased to the nearest hospital – Such inaction undermines the credibility of the prosecution’s narrative, as any reasonable person faced with the murder of a close family member would typically inform the police without delay – This kind of passive conduct runs contrary with the natural behavior expected of a prudent person in such grave and distressing circumstances. [Paras 9, 23]
3. All the three eyewitnesses (PW-8, PW-2, PW-5) are unable to say who were the chance witnesses at the time of incident and saw the commission of crime by the accused persons – It is pertinent here to mention that in the present case, neither the pistol nor the knife was recovered or seized – The testimony of first investigating officer (PW–11), wherein he has deposed that information was received through telephonic message, however in the cross-examination of second investigating officer (PW–10) to whom investigation was later carried forward to, he has specifically mentioned that no telephone was installed in the police station – Also, the witnesses’ testimony remains completely silent on why the deceased’s body was not taken to the nearest hospital and why it was kept at the site overnight – In view of the foregoing facts, the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations of the commission of murder by the appellants. [Paras 20-24] Evidence – Unnatural beaviour of witness – Discussed. [Paras 10-15]
Evidence – Eye-witnesses – Quality of evidence – Conduct of witness:
Held: As a general rule, to prove the case of the prosecution, the testimony of eyewitness primarily ought to be considered and be relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused – It is trite to say that the testimony of the eyewitness must be trustworthy, free from any kind of blemish and of sterling character to prove the incident, whereby the case of the prosecution may be proved beyond reasonable doubt – It is also settled that the quality of evidence brought to prove the guilt is a relevant factor and not the quality of the witnesses – The testimony of those witnesses either proves the case as alleged by the prosecution or otherwise – Sometimes, the testimony of the eyewitness is found unbelievable and can be discarded – To adjudge the credibility of the said testimony, relevant factor would be the conduct of the witness indicating the natural reaction comparable to a prudent man, making the conduct of witness realistic. [Para 16]
Evidence – Relative or friend of accompanying deceased – Furnishing information to police or relative – Relevant factor:
Held: If a friend or relative is accompanying the deceased at the time of incident, action taken by the witness is a relevant factor to save him – Moreover, in addition, at the time of incident and immediately after commission of the offence, what steps were taken by the eyewitness to save the life of the deceased – Whether the eyewitness left the place of occurrence and returned the place of incident simpliciter without furnishing information to the police or intimating the relatives/friends/near dear ones becomes relevant – In case, the eyewitness does not convey any information about the incident to anyone which is not expected from a prudent man, his conduct does not appear to be natural of a human being – The time of furnishing information to the police at the earliest by eyewitness is one of the relevant factors to dislodge the plea of belated FIR, therefore, the conduct of an eyewitness should be reflected like a real image in a mirror, thereby making his testimony reliable to prove the guilt of the accused. [Para 17]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. 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.