Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 307, read with s.34 – Murder of an MLA and his bodyguard – Respondents convicted by Trial Court – Conviction reversed by High Court – Challenge to: Held: In view of the evidence and materials on record, charges against A-4 and A-8 under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 307 r/w Section 34 proved and established beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court affirmed and restored – However, benefit of doubt given to other accused persons as there is no direct ocular evidence implicating them and the charge of conspiracy is not substantiated, their acquittal upheld – Impugned judgment set aside. [Paras 42-45] FIR – Delay in forwarding the copy to magistrate – When not fatal:
Held: The incident took place in the night of 13.06.1998 – 14.06.1998 being a Sunday, the FIR was forwarded to the jurisdictional magistrate on 15.06.1998 – Thus, the delay in forwarding the copy of the FIR to the jurisdictional magistrate was explained – Mere delay by itself is not sufficient to discard and disbelieve the case of the prosecution unless the accused demonstrate how this delay has prejudiced their case – If the investigation starts in right earnest and there is sufficient material on record to show that the accused were named and pinpointed, the prosecution case can be accepted when evidence implicates the accused – The requirement to dispatch and serve a copy of the FIR to the jurisdictional magistrate is an external check against ante dating or ante timing of the FIR to ensure that there is no manipulation or interpolation in the FIR – Further, if the court finds the witnesses to be truthful and credible, the lack of a cogent explanation for the delay may not be regarded as detrimental. [Para 30]
Evidence – Non-recovery of vehicles and weapons used in the offence – Effect on credibility of eyewitnesses, if any: Held: The ocular version of the witnesses should not be disregarded solely because the weapon used in the crime and the vehicles allegedly used by the accused were not located or seized by the police – On facts, the failure of the police to recover the vehicles and the weapons is not sufficient to undermine the credibility of the eyewitness accounts or the corroborative evidence regarding the cause of the homicidal deaths of both the deceased. [Para 27]
Evidence – Witness with criminal background – Courts to exercise caution but, evidence cannot be discarded merely on the ground of criminal background:
Held: Criminal background of a witness necessitates that the courts approach their evidence with caution – The testimony of a witness with a chequered past cannot be dismissed as untruthful or uncreditworthy without considering the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, including their presence at the scene of the offence – In cases involving conflicts between rival gangs or groups, the testimony of members from either side is admissible and relevant – If the court is convinced of the veracity and truthfulness of such testimony, it may be considered – Courts assess the broader context to determine if there is sufficient corroboration, as long as there are no valid reasons to discredit the evidence – The crucial test is whether the witness is truly an eyewitness and whether their testimony is credible – If their presence at the scene is established beyond doubt, their account of the incident can be relied upon – Such evidence cannot be discarded merely on the grounds of criminal background. [Para 20]
Evidence – Presence of eyewitness (PW-1) at the place of occurrence (hospital) proven, however there was non- compliance with hospital and prison protocols – Reliance on testimony of PW-1, if proper – MLA and his bodyguard were murdered in the hospital where the former was admitted for treatment while in judicial custody – PW-1 did not seek prior permission from the court or jail authorities nor did he make any entry in the hospital register while visiting the deceased MLA in the hospital:
Held: Fardbeyan (Exhibit-50) and the ocular evidence of PW-24 and PW25, establish the presence of PW-1 and other visitors in the hospital – Once the presence of a witness at the place of occurrence is proven, their testimony, if credible and truthful, should not be dismissed solely based on non-compliance with hospital and prison protocols – Further, the reasoning given by the High Court to disregard and doubt the eyewitness account of PW-1, on the premise that he ought to have been the informant because he is the brother-in-law of the deceased MLA and was present at the hospital at the time of occurrence, is conjectural and unfounded – Any person can be an informant of a case, and the police may also register a case on their own – The rationale of the High Court for dismissing the testimony of PW-1 is fundamentally flawed. [Para 15]
Evidence – Testimony of hostile witness – Maxims – falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus – Inapplicability: Held: Maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule to apply in the conditions of this country – This maxim does not occupy the status of rule of law – It is merely a rule of caution which involves the question of the weight of evidence that a court may apply in the given set of circumstances – Evidence of a hostile witness is not to be completely rejected, so as to exclude versions that support the prosecution – Rather, the testimony of the hostile witness is to be subjected to close scrutiny, enabling the court to separate truth from falsehood, exaggerations and improvements – Only reliable evidence should be taken into consideration – The court is not denuded of its power to make an appropriate assessment – The entire testimony of a hostile witness is discarded only when the judge, as a matter of prudence, finds the witness wholly discredited, warranting the exclusion of the evidence in toto – The creditworthy portions of the testimony should be considered for the purpose of evidence in the case. [Paras 16, 22]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. 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.