Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Prosecution case that the victim while attending a marriage, had altercation with some persons who threatened him and went away – They subsequently came back with more persons at night and assaulted the victim – Allegedly 11 persons were involved in the crime – Victim was taken to police station and FIR was lodged, thereafter he died in the hospital – Trial Court acquitted 6 accused persons, however, remaining 5 persons were convicted u/ss.148,302/149 – Appeal dismissed by the High Court – Aggrieved, two accused persons, A-3 and A-5 filed appeal – Held: Prosecution has failed to prove the alleged offence by adducing cogent and trustworthy evidence – High Court has also not dealt with the matter in accordance with the settled principles of law – Record reveals that the entire case of prosecution was based on the evidence of two prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W-1 and P.W-5 – In instant case, the Courts below failed to take into consideration the contradictions and distortions in the evidence of P.W-1 & 5 – From the evidence of P.W-1, it transpires that the participation and the role played by the appellants (A-3 and A-5) in the crime was limited to giving blows with fists and legs to the deceased, whereas, P.W-5 stated differently that one appellant (A-5) had also attacked the victim holding a knife – There was no corroboration among their statements, who were the prime witnesses, as to the role played by the accused – In the FIR also, it was stated that appellants had beaten the victim with hands and feet and no weapon was ascribed to have been held by them – The post mortem report and evidence of the doctor did not disclose any injuries suffered by the victim resulted from the beatings received by fists, cuffs and legs as such injuries were not visible – Prosecution had made large number of assailants as accused to have attacked the victim, but the evidences of witnesses was full of discrepancies and they were not able to state as to how the appellants caused injuries to the victim leading to his death – Discrepancies and contradictions in the case on hand go to the root of the matter and are material ones and based on such evidence, it is not possible to convict the accused.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court unfortunately has not dealt with the matter in accordance with the settled principles of law. Before going to award conviction against an accused for the offence under Section 302, IPC the Courts should be mindful of the fact that there should be no room to suspect the evidence of key prosecution witnesses based on whose evidence the conviction is being awarded. As a general rule, while appreciating evidence in a criminal case, the Court should bear in mind that it is not the quantity, but the quality of evidence that is material. It is the duty of the Court to consider the trustworthiness of the witness and the evidence adduced on record and to assess the same in a prudent manner whether the same inspires confidence so as to accept and act upon, before convicting an accused. [Para 17] [823-A-C]
2. In the case on hand, the Courts below failed to take into consideration the contradictions and distortions in the evidence of PWs 1 and 5. From the evidence of PW1 it clearly transpires that the participation and the role played by the accused-appellants in the crime was limited to giving blows with fists and legs to the deceased, while other accused were assaulting the deceased with knife and sword stick respectively. A statement of the prosecution witness which is otherwise untrustworthy cannot be corroborated by another piece of unreliable evidence of another prosecution witness. In the FIR also, it was stated that, the appellants herein, had beaten the victim with hands and feet and no weapon was ascribed to have been held by them. Whereas, PW5 states differently that the accused-appellant (A-5) had also attacked the victim holding a knife. There was no corroboration among their statements, who are the prime witnesses, as to the role played by the accused herein. The postmortem report and the evidence of PW7 (Dr.) does not disclose any injuries suffered by the victim resulted from the beatings received by fists, cuffs and legs as such injuries are not visible. The prosecution had made large number of assailants as accused to have attacked the victim, but the witnesses, though their evidences are full of discrepancies, could not be able to state as to how the appellants herein caused injuries to the deceased leading to his death. In such a scenario, it would not be in the interest of justice to convict the appellants as the standard of proof in a criminal trial is proof beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused in those standards. The Courts below, basing on their own assumptions and presumptions, have convicted the accused. Though every discrepancy and contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is not fatal to the case of the prosecution, but the contradictions in the case on hand goes to the root of the matter are material ones and basing on such evidence it is not advisable to convict the accused. [Para 18] [823-G-H; 824-A-E]
Harijana Thirupala and Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad [2002] 1 Suppl. SCR 379 : (2002) 6 SCC 470 – relied on.
S. Govidaraju v. State of Karnataka 2013 (10) SCALE
454 – referred to.
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.