Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302 and 323 – Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – ss.3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) – On 14.02.2013, victim-deceased had eloped with appellant’s younger sister aged 18 years – A Panchayat was held in the village and that it was decided in the Panchayat that victim would go out of the village Ogipur, and the girl would stay at her parental house – The victim came back to attend the wedding of his friend – Appellant confronted him – Quarrel took place between them – In heat of temper, the appellant took a shabad stone and started hitting victim with it – PW-1-mother of victim tried to intervene, she also suffered injuries – Victim succumbed to injuries – The deceased came from the Scheduled Caste Community ‘Mala’ – FIR was registered u/s.302, IPC and s.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act – The Trial Court convicted the appellant – The High Court confirmed the conviction against the appellant – Correctness: Held: PW1 deposed that she and PW3 both rushed to the place and at that time found that the deceased was being beaten by the appellant with a stone – The prosecution case hinged on the story told in their evidence by PW1 and PW3 – However, PW3 was declared to be hostile since he resiled from the story and did not support the prosecution – The other witnesses included PW4 and PW5, both turned hostile – Each of the two stated that none of them had conducted any Panchayat regarding the issue of elopement of accused’s sister and the deceased – There were noticeable discrepancies and mismatching details in the Inquest Report-Ex. P6, in the Postmortem Examination Report-Ex. P8 and in the evidence of PW7 in that regard, which have remained non-explanatory – The opinion given as to the cause of death was that it was 12 to 24 hours prior to the time of conducting the autopsy – If the date of 14.05.2013 is to be believed, then it does not correlate with the time of death which was indicated to be 12 to 24 hours before the time of autopsy – The doctor-PW7 who conducted postmortem examination has not been able to explain satisfactorily these discrepancies found – The interaction of evidence of PW1 and PW3 read with the evidence of PW4 and PW5, demolished the very fulcrum of the prosecution case, in as much as the very occurrence of the incident was discredited and became liable to be disbelieved, cementing doubts further by the fact that though the incident was claimed to have occurred in the open place humming with vehicular traffic, no person from the nearby was examined as a witness to support and establish the incident – Thus, the occurrence of incident itself could not be said to have been proved by the prosecution – The genesis of the incident and the motive of the crime were also not proved as the prosecution evidence could not establish the story of holding of Panchayat pursuant to the elopement of the sister of the accused and the deceased – Thus, the appellant is acquitted. [Paras 5.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.3, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 10, 10.4]
Evidence – Interested witness – Evaluating the evidence of a related or interested witness calls for extra caution: Held: While evaluating the evidence of a related or interested witness calls for extra caution when the evidence of such witness suffers from contradictions and discrepancies, for, knowingly or unknowingly a departure from telling the truth by a witness belonging to such category naturally leads to give rise to inconsistencies – The discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony of a related or interested witness will have to be viewed in such context, and more particularly when other evidence on record sufficiently demolishes the evidence of the related or interested witness, its evidence would entirely lose its reliability to stand in support of the prosecution. [Para 8.2]
Evidence – Hostile witness – When admissible: Held: The evidence of the hostile witness is admissible, once it gets strengthened with the help of other evidence – In Khujji and in Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai, it was held that it is open to the court to have a conviction upon the testimony of a hostile witness – Therefore, when the testimony of a hostile witness is admissible subject to be feeded by corroboration and the conviction on that basis could be arrived at, the reverse is also true as a canon of appreciation of evidence – What necessarily implies is that as the evidence of a hostile witness can be used for convicting the accused, such evidence could indeed be applied and utilised also for the purpose of acquitting the accused, when what is testified by the hostile witness inspires credibility, when read with the other evidence on record, either ocular or documentary – The dictum would be that the testimony of a hostile witness or statement in the deposition of hostile witness could be properly employed to discredit the prosecution case and a conclusion of acquittal could well be supported through it and could be founded therein. [Paras 8.4.2, 9]
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.