1993 JTR(SC) 611
1994 AIR(SC) 672 ; 1993 AIR(SCW) 4092 ; 1993 CriLR 517 ; 1993 2 Crimes(SC) 1174 ; 1994 CrLJ 626 ; 1993 Supp JT 569 ; 1993 3 Scale 227 ; 1993 Supp3 SCC 678 ; 1993 SCC(Cri) 1092 ; 1993 2 UJ 487
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND G. N. RAY, JJ.
Sardul Singh and others, Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 1982,
D/- 27-7-1993.
Act Referred :EVIDENCE ACT : S.45
(A) The appeal is tried under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 2 of the SC (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act. The provisions contemplate an appeal to the High Court or Supreme Court against an order of acquittal in a criminal case, invoking both statutory criminal appellate jurisdiction and the special enlargement jurisdiction to ensure that questions of law arising from an acquittal are appropriately reviewed. Section 45 of the Evidence Act on expert opinions is implicitly relevant in assessing medical evidence regarding time of death. The case involves an appeal against acquittal in a matricide case where the trial and High Court evaluated the interplay between eyewitness testimony and medical evidence on stomach contents.
(B) Key legal principles include that the testimony of eye-witnesses cannot be discarded merely on account of semi-digested food in the stomach, as the time of consumption cannot be precisely determined from stomach contents; medical observations must be viewed in proper perspective and cannot override direct evidence; trivial discrepancies in testimony do not undermine the overall reliability of witness statements; and the court must consider the evidence as a whole to determine if it establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Facts of the case:
A father and his two sons were tried for the murder of the deceased, who was the fathers wife and the mother of the sons. The dispute centered on land inheritance and the mothers desire to bequeath her share to one son. The deceased was attacked at night at her residence, dragged to a nearby location, and fatally injured with weapons. An FIR was promptly lodged, and three eyewitnessesP.W. 2, P.W. 3, and P.W. 4testified to the incident. The trial court acquitted the accused, relying on discrepancies in timing, location, and medical evidence regarding stomach contents. The High Court reversed the acquittal, upholding the conviction.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the delay in lodging the FIR was not inordinate, the testimony of the eyewitnesses was credible and consistent in substance, the medical evidence regarding semi-digested food was not determinative of the time of the offense, injuries to a witness supported her version, and the trial court erred in attaching undue importance to minor inconsistencies and medical observations. The court concluded that the guilt of the appellants was established beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the acquittal based on the evaluation of eyewitness testimony versus medical evidence; whether the presence of semi-digested food in the stomach created a reasonable doubt as to the time of the offense; and whether minor discrepancies in witness statements warranted the acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where direct eyewitness testimony places the accused at the scene and medical evidence regarding stomach contents is uncertain and non-specific, the court must prefer the direct evidence and cannot allow speculative medical inferences to override the testimony of witnesses who were present at the time of the incident.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed and the convictions of the appellants are upheld.
(A) The appeal is tried under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 2 of the SC (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act. The provisions contemplate an appeal to the High Court or Supreme Court against an order of acquittal in a criminal case, invoking both statutory criminal appellate jurisdiction and the special enlargement jurisdiction to ensure that questions of law arising from an acquittal are appropriately reviewed. Section 45 of the Evidence Act on expert opinions is implicitly relevant in assessing medical evidence regarding time of death. The case involves an appeal against acquittal in a matricide case where the trial and High Court evaluated the interplay between eyewitness testimony and medical evidence on stomach contents.
(B) Key legal principles include that the testimony of eye-witnesses cannot be discarded merely on account of semi-digested food in the stomach, as the time of consumption cannot be precisely determined from stomach contents; medical observations must be viewed in proper perspective and cannot override direct evidence; trivial discrepancies in testimony do not undermine the overall reliability of witness statements; and the court must consider the evidence as a whole to determine if it establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Facts of the case:
A father and his two sons were tried for the murder of the deceased, who was the fathers wife and the mother of the sons. The dispute centered on land inheritance and the mothers desire to bequeath her share to one son. The deceased was attacked at night at her residence, dragged to a nearby location, and fatally injured with weapons. An FIR was promptly lodged, and three eyewitnessesP.W. 2, P.W. 3, and P.W. 4testified to the incident. The trial court acquitted the accused, relying on discrepancies in timing, location, and medical evidence regarding stomach contents. The High Court reversed the acquittal, upholding the conviction.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the delay in lodging the FIR was not inordinate, the testimony of the eyewitnesses was credible and consistent in substance, the medical evidence regarding semi-digested food was not determinative of the time of the offense, injuries to a witness supported her version, and the trial court erred in attaching undue importance to minor inconsistencies and medical observations. The court concluded that the guilt of the appellants was established beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the acquittal based on the evaluation of eyewitness testimony versus medical evidence; whether the presence of semi-digested food in the stomach created a reasonable doubt as to the time of the offense; and whether minor discrepancies in witness statements warranted the acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where direct eyewitness testimony places the accused at the scene and medical evidence regarding stomach contents is uncertain and non-specific, the court must prefer the direct evidence and cannot allow speculative medical inferences to override the testimony of witnesses who were present at the time of the incident.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed and the convictions of the appellants are upheld.
R.C.Kohli, R.L.Kohli, R.S.Yadav
Judgment
K. JAVACHANDRA REDDY, J. -This appeal is filed under S. 379, Cr.P.C. read with S. 2 of the SC (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act. There are three appellants. Sardul Singh, Al is the father of Satnam Singh, A2 and Mohan Singh. A3. They were tried by the Sessions Judge, Patiala for offences punishable under Ss. 302/ 34 and 323/ 34, I.P.C. but were acquitted. The State of Punjab filed an appeal against the said order of acquittal and the High Court by the impugned judgment accepted the State appeal and set aside the acquittal of the appellants and convicted them under Ss. 302/34, J.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. Satnam Singh, A2 was further convicted under 5. 323, I.P.C. and the other two accused were also convicted under Ss. 323/ 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo six months R.I. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. Hence the present appeal.
2. This is a case of matricide. As already mentioned, Al is the father of A2 and A3. P.W. 2, Malook Singh is the brother of Al. The father of P.W. 2 and Al died four years prior to the occurrence leaving 19 killas of land which was divided into three shares. 7 killas each came to the share of Al Sardul Singh and P.W. 2 Malook Singh and remaining 5 Killas remained with their mother Sant Kaur, the deceased who was residing with P.W. 2. Therefore the land of her share was also cultivated by P.W. 2. Al Sardul Singh, however, wanted that the land of the share of the mother also should be equally divided between the two brothers for which the deceased did not agree as she wanted to give her share to P.W. 2 who was rendering service to her. Therefore Al nursed a grievance against her mother. On 23-10-78 at about 9 or 10 p.m., P.W. 2 along with his wife Kapur Kaur, daughter Mahant Kaur and the deceased, after taking their meals. was sitting in the compound of their farm-house. While so Al Sarbul Singh and A2 Satnam Singh armed with gandasis and A3 Mohan Singh armed with a sua came there and dragged the deceased to the nearby Roori. Al gave a gandasi blow on her head and then A2 also gave a gandasi blow on her head and A3 gave a sua blow above her right eye-brow. Kapur Kaur wife of P.W. 2 in order to save the deceased lied herself on the deceased but A2 and A3 inflicted injuries on her also. Thereafter all the accused gave numerous injuries on the deceased and ran away with their weapons. The deceased died on the spot. P.W. 2 who witnessed the occurrence went to the Police Station and gave a report at 7.15 a.m. on the morning of 24-10-78 and a case was registered. The inquest was held over the dead body and the same was sent for post-mortem. The Doctor. P.W. 1, who conducted the post-mortem found 16 injuries all over the dead body and he opined that the death was due to injuries on the scalp and brain which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Doctor also noticed that the stomach of the deceased contained 150 gins. of semi-digested food. Another Doctor, P.W. 14 noticed three injuries on the person of Kapur Kaur, P.W. 3. The accused were arrested and after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid.
3. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of three eye-witnesses namely Malook Singh, P.W. 2, his wife Kapur Kaur, P.W. 3 and daughter Mahant Kaur, P.W. 4 who figured as direct witnesses. The accused pleaded not guilty and stated that they were falsely implicated. The trial Court rejected the evidence of these three eye-witnesses holding that the occurrence must have taken place sometime in the night and not earlier as deposed by these witnesses. In coming to this conclusion, the trial Court relied on the circumstance that semi-digested food was found in the stomach of the deceased and therefore the occurrence must have taken place long after having taken the food and not immediately thereafter as spoken to by the P.Ws. The trial Court observed that if the deceased had taken meals at about 8 or 9 p.m. as stated to by the eye-witnesses then the occurrence must have taken place some time around 1 a.m. and therefore the testimony of the eye-witnesses is completely contradicted by the medical evidence. The trial Court also pointed out some discrepancies regarding the place of occurrence. It was observed that the body was found near the Roori and not in the compound and the evidence of the eyewitnesses to the effect that the deceased was dragged to the Roori is not supported by the medical evidence inasmuch as no injuries due to dragging were found. The trial Court also pointed that according to P.W. 2 they were sitting in the compound of the house from where the deceased was dragged but P.Ws. 3 and 4 stated that they were sitting in the kitchen from where the accused dragged the deceased. According to the trial Court this is a material discrepancy which goes to the very root of the case. The trial Court also pointed out that there was a discrepancy regarding the spot where the electric light was there and there was improvement in their deposition in this regard namely whether light was in the verandah or in the kitchen. The trial Court also pointed out that the discrepancies regarding the manner in which the injuries were inflicted between the evidence of one witness and the other. The trial Court further pointed out that the evidence regarding the motive is not very satisfactory. These are the main reasons given by the trial Court for acquitting the accused.
4. The High Court has examined the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 in great detail. It must be noted that there cannot be any dispute that the occurrence took place near the house in which P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 were staying. Further P.W. 3 was injured. The F.I. R. was given promptly in which the details were mentioned. The presence of P.W. 3 further fortified by the fact that she also received injuries as stated by her and the medical evidence supports her version. A feeble attempt was made to show that these injuries could have been self-inflicted. We see absolutely no basis for the same having regard to the nature of the injuries on P.W. 3.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that no independent witness has come forward to speak about the occurrence or at least about the movements of the accused while coming or going. Learned counsel further submitted that the fact that the dead body was found near the Roori would show that somebody in the latter part of night might have attacked the deceased when the old lady came out to answer the call of nature.
6. We see absolutely no reason to discredit the evidence of the three eye-witnesses whose presence cannot be doubted. Now coming to the semi-digested food, it cannot be ruled out that the old lady might not have eaten anything earlier. Merely because the illiterate witnesses stated that they took their meals immediately before the occurrence cannot by itself be a circumstance to discredit their evidence on the basis of medical evidence regarding the presence of semi-disgested food. It is also clear from the text-books on medical jurisprudence that the stomach contents cannot be determined with precision at the time of death. As rightly held by the High Court, the trial Court grossly erred in basing its verdict mainly on the nebulous medical observation. As noted above the trial Court has given undue importance to some insignificant facts and trivial things. The trial Court commented that P. W. 2 did not make any effort to inform any village officer on that night itself. P.W. 2 in his evidence has categorically stated that he did make attempt to contact somebody but could not do so. Even otherwise we do not think that there is any inordinate delay in this case in giving the report. All the detail are mentioned in the F.I.R. The comment of the trial Court about the electric light also be illogical and unsound. The accused are not strangers to P. Ws. The three eye-witnesses have given some details about the manner in which the injuries were inflicted. Assuming there are some variations, they are insignificant. There are a number of injuries on the deceased and each witness cannot be expected to note the details in seriatim. The view taken by the trial Court is perverse. The only possible view in this case is that the evidence of the three eye-witnesses establishes the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. In the result this appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
For Citation: AIR 1994 SC 672
Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.