Rohtas & Anr. vs The State of Haryana

Penal Code, 1860: s.302/34 – Six accused – Knife blows on the stomach of the victim-deceased by the appellants causing fatal injuries – Evidence of eye-witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) – Conviction of appellants-accused no.1 and 2 and acquittal of others – Prosecution case was that on the fateful day, all the accused persons obstructed the deceased who was riding a motorcycle – Immediately, after he was stopped, both the appellants inflicted knife blows on the stomach of the deceased one after the other – Evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 was accepted by the Trial Court as well as the High Court as truthful – No reason to deviate from that concurrent view taken by the Courts below – Deficiencies pointed out by the appellants in the investigation were insignificant and trivial and whole evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 was corroborated by the other evidence in the form of medical reports and recovery of human blood stained soil from the spot where the deceased was assaulted – Further, there was no delay in lodging FIR –Recovery of weapon used by accused No.1 during the commission of the offence also reinforced the role and involvement of the appellants in the commission of the crime – The quality substantive evidence on record clearly established the guilt of the appellants – The fact that there was no evidence about the previous enmity and that no evidence was produced by the prosecution in that regard, cannot be the basis to reverse the concurrent view taken by two courts below, recording finding of guilt against the appellants – Order of conviction of appellants is not interfered with. Criminal Law: Benefit of doubt – Wrong benefit given to acquitted accused cannot enure to the advantage of the convicted accused against whom clear, truthful and unassailable evidence was available.

Witnesses: Reaction of witnesses – Held: There cannot be uniformity in the reaction of witnesses – There is possibility of variation and difference in the behaviour of witnesses or their reactions from situation to situation and individual to individual – The Court must not decipher the evidence on unrealistic basis – The difference in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, in the instant case, about the conditions of the deceased when he was admitted in the hospital, therefore, would not take the matter any further especially when the medical reports clearly indicated that he was admitted in the hospital in semi-conscious state and was declared dead by the doctor only thereafter.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. It is well established position in law that Supreme Court, while entertaining an appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily, will not attempt to reappreciate the evidence on record unless the decision of the Trial Court or the High Court is shown to have committed a manifest error of law or procedure or the conclusion reached by the Courts below is, on the face of it, perverse. [Para 12] [872-E]

2. PW-1 was extensively cross-examined but the crossexamination did not make any dent with regard to his statement in the examination-in-chief that Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 gave knife blow each on the stomach of the victim-deceased and caused the fatal injuries. Same was the position with regard to the evidence of PW-2. Even he plainly mentioned about the manner in which the deceased was stopped by all the accused persons when he was riding his motorcycle and immediately thereafter Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 inflicted knife blows on his stomach one after the other. The fact that similar role was ascribed to Accused No.4 and Accused No.6 but the High Court acquitted them by giving benefit of doubt cannot be the basis to undermine the quality of evidence which already came on record. Neither the State nor the complainant assailed the finding recorded by the High Court qua acquitted accused. That would not mean that a wrong relief given to co-accused should also be given to the appellants against whom clinching evidence was on record about the manner in which the offence was committed by them. [Paras 15-16] [876-F-G; 877-E-H]

3. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, the eye witnesses was that all the accused persons obstructed the deceased who was riding a motorcycle. Immediately, after he was stopped, both the appellants inflicted knife blows on the stomach of the deceased one after the other. This role of the appellants was distinct. Thereafter the deceased attempted to flee away from the spot when he was stopped by the other accused persons and two of them inflicted knife blows one after the other. The events, therefore, can be segregated. So far as the second event is concerned, the Trial Court and the High Court gave benefit of doubt to the concerned accused. In that sense, the appellants are not concerned with that part of the event. Neither the State nor the complainant has assailed the acquittal of other accused. In any case, wrong benefit given to those accused cannot enure to the advantage of the appellants against whom clear, truthful and unassailable evidence is forthcoming. For, neither the presence of PW-1 and PW-2 can be doubted nor their evidence can be discarded on the specious ground that they are related to the deceased and are therefore interested witnesses. Indubitably, just because the witnesses are related cannot be the basis to discard their evidence, if it is otherwise natural and truthful. There is no reason to deviate from that concurrent view taken by the Courts below. [Paras 18-20] [878-C-G; 879-A]

4. The so-called deficiencies pointed out by the appellants in the investigation or the prosecution case, are insignificant and trivial and cannot be the basis to reject the whole evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 which is corroborated by the other evidence in the form of medical reports and recovery of human blood stained soil from the spot near the hospital where the deceased was assaulted by the accused. The fact that the blood group of the human blood stained soil cannot be ascertained, can be no basis to discard that piece of evidence. Even the recovery of weapon used by Accused No.1 during the commission of the offence reinforces the role and involvement of the appellants in the commission of the crime. The quality substantive evidence on record clearly establishes the guilt of the appellants. [Para 22] [882-A-C]

5. There cannot be uniformity in the reaction of witnesses. The Court must not decipher the evidence on unrealistic basis. There can be no hard and fast rule about the uniformity in human reaction. The difference in the statements of the prosecution witnesses about the conditions of the deceased when he was admitted in the hospital, therefore, does not take the matter any further especially when the medical reports clearly indicate that he was admitted in the hospital in semi-conscious state and was declared dead by the doctor only thereafter. [Para 23] [882-DE]

6. As regards, the delay in registration of FIR, that aspect was also considered by the Trial Court and the finding recorded by the Trial Court rejecting that defence plea found favour with the High Court. There has been no delay as is evident from the contemporaneous record. The deceased was admitted in hospital immediately after the incident. He was declared dead at 11.00 p.m. The City Police Station was informed by the doctor at 11.30 p.m. Thereafter, PW-1 complained to ASI (PW-5) near hospital building and finally the FIR was registered at 0015 hrs. on the night between 25th and 26th April, 1998. In view of that, the view taken by the Trial Court that there was no delay in registration of the FIR is upheld in the fact situation of the instant case. [Paras 24-26] [882-F; 883-C-D; 884-B-C]

7. The defence took self-contradictory stand. First, it was asserted that the deceased sustained injuries in the first incident which had occurred at 6.30 p.m. on the same evening. However, no evidence in support of that plea was forthcoming. Then, the alternative plea taken by the defence was that the deceased was, in fact, injured at some other place and was brought in a threewheeler to the hospital. Even this plea of the accused was held to be figment of imagination and without any evidence in support thereof. On the other hand, the prosecution produced evidence in the form of human blood soiled mud from the spot near the hospital where the incident in question had occurred as stated by PW-1 and PW-2. Even the fact that the accused were acquitted in the cross-cases filed with regard to the first incident which took place at 6.30 p.m. on the same evening would not take the matter any further for the appellants. That was an independent incident whereas the finding of guilt recorded against the appellants was concerning the incident which had taken place at 8.30 p.m. near the Government Hospital as proved by the prosecution witnesses. [Paras 27-28] [884-C-G]

Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration (1975) 4 SCC

649 ; Mst. Dalbir Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 158 : [1977] 1 SCR 280 ; Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat (1999) 9 JT 319 : [1999] 5 Suppl. SCR 41 ; Chandra Bihari Gautam & Ors. v. State of Bihar JT (2002) 4 SC 62: [2002] 2 SCR 1164; Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb & Ors. v. State of U.P. JT (2006) 1 SC 428 : [2006] 1 SCR 519 ; Rizan & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh (2003) 2 SCC 661 : [2003] 1 SCR 457 ; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Kumar & Ors. (2017) 14 SCC 614 ; Brahm Swaroop & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011)

6 SCC 288 : [2010] 15 SCR 1 Dilawar Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana (2015) 1 SCC 737 : [2014] 7 SCR

844 ; State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Madhusudhan Rao (2008) 15 SCC 582 : [2008] 14 SCR 1170 ; Kishan Singh (Dead) Through LRs v. Gurpal Singh & Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 775 : [2010] 10 SCR 16 – relied on. State of U.P. v. Moti Ram & Ors. (1990) 4 SCC 389 : [1990] 2 SCR 939 ; Balaka Singh & Ors. v. The State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 511 : [1975] Suppl. SCR 129 – distinguished.