2005 JTR(SC) 687
2005 30 AIC 67 ; 2005 3 AICLR 165 ; 2005 AIR(SC) 2439 ; 2005 AIR(SCW) 2394 ; 2005 AIR(SCW) 580 ; 2005 AllLJ 1589 ; 2005 1 ApexCJ(SC) 677 ; 2005 3 APLJ 41 ; 2005 3 BBCJ(SC) 154 ; 2005 2 CriCC 835 ; 2005 CriLR 501 ; 2005 2 Crimes(SC) 145 ; 2005 CrLJ 2579 ; 2005 3 EastCrC(SC) 162 ; 2005 2 JCC 1019 ; 2005 5 JT 553 ; 2005 4 Scale 242 ; 2005 4 Scale 342 ; 2005 11 SCC 271 ; 2006 1 SCC(Cri) 125 ; 2005 2 WLC 62 ; 2005 KHC 1989 ; 2005 1 Supreme 204 ; 2005 3 Supreme 490
2005(3) Supreme 490
Supreme Court of India
(From Allahabad High Court)
B.P. Singh & Arun Kumar, JJ.
State of U.P. —Appellant
versus
Gambhir Singh & Ors. —Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1320 of 1999
Decided on 20-4-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Prashant Chaudhary, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Harinder Mohan Singh, Kaushal Yadav, Ms. Shabana Saifi and Anil Hooda, Advocates.
Important point
If on same evidence two views are reasonably possible, one in favour of accused must be preferred.
Act
Referred
:CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : S.302, S.34
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.34, S.302
(A) The appeal is governed by the Indian Penal Code Sections 302 and 34 read with the Civil Procedure Code Sections 302 and 34. Section 302 defines the offence of murder and prescribes punishment, while Section 34 addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention. The High Court evaluated the applicability of these provisions in the context of an alleged nighttime shooting in village Vikrampur, where the accused were convicted under Section 302/34 but subsequently acquitted on appeal due to insufficiently corroborated evidence.
(B) Key principles include that when an appeal against acquittal is entertained by special leave, the court must be satisfied that the High Court has not mis-appreciated material evidence; corroboration is essential for eye-witness testimony; and if two views are possible, the view most favourable to the accused must be adopted.
Facts of the case:
On 5.10.1979 in village Vikrampur, P.S. Kishni, the deceased Netra Pal Singh was shot and killed by persons armed with a rifle, a gun, and a country-made pistol while working in the fields. The deceaseds wife and another witness raised an alarm, and the first informant reported the incident. The prosecution relied on three prosecution witnesses, including the deceaseds brother, his wife, and a passer-by, whose testimonies were recorded at varying times with inconsistencies regarding their presence and actions during the occurrence.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found the evidence of the three prosecution witnesses unreliable. The passer-by was deemed biased as he was the cousin of the deceased. The wifes testimony was contradictory regarding her location at the time of the shooting, and medical evidence suggested the deceased had eaten hours before the incident, undermining her presence. The first witness had animus against the appellants and his evidence lacked objective corroboration, as no injuries from a rifle were found and only two wounds were noted on the deceased.
Issues:
Whether the High Court correctly evaluated the reliability of prosecution witnesses and whether the evidence established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, warranting interference by the Special Leave Appellate Court.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that where the High Court has recorded a finding of acquittal based on appreciation of evidence, and there are two or more reasonable views of the evidence, the view most favourable to the accused must be accepted, and the appellate court must not interfere unless there is a clear legal or material error.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed and the acquittal of the accused is upheld.
(A) The appeal is governed by the Indian Penal Code Sections 302 and 34 read with the Civil Procedure Code Sections 302 and 34. Section 302 defines the offence of murder and prescribes punishment, while Section 34 addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention. The High Court evaluated the applicability of these provisions in the context of an alleged nighttime shooting in village Vikrampur, where the accused were convicted under Section 302/34 but subsequently acquitted on appeal due to insufficiently corroborated evidence.
(B) Key principles include that when an appeal against acquittal is entertained by special leave, the court must be satisfied that the High Court has not mis-appreciated material evidence; corroboration is essential for eye-witness testimony; and if two views are possible, the view most favourable to the accused must be adopted.
Facts of the case:
On 5.10.1979 in village Vikrampur, P.S. Kishni, the deceased Netra Pal Singh was shot and killed by persons armed with a rifle, a gun, and a country-made pistol while working in the fields. The deceaseds wife and another witness raised an alarm, and the first informant reported the incident. The prosecution relied on three prosecution witnesses, including the deceaseds brother, his wife, and a passer-by, whose testimonies were recorded at varying times with inconsistencies regarding their presence and actions during the occurrence.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found the evidence of the three prosecution witnesses unreliable. The passer-by was deemed biased as he was the cousin of the deceased. The wifes testimony was contradictory regarding her location at the time of the shooting, and medical evidence suggested the deceased had eaten hours before the incident, undermining her presence. The first witness had animus against the appellants and his evidence lacked objective corroboration, as no injuries from a rifle were found and only two wounds were noted on the deceased.
Issues:
Whether the High Court correctly evaluated the reliability of prosecution witnesses and whether the evidence established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, warranting interference by the Special Leave Appellate Court.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that where the High Court has recorded a finding of acquittal based on appreciation of evidence, and there are two or more reasonable views of the evidence, the view most favourable to the accused must be accepted, and the appellate court must not interfere unless there is a clear legal or material error.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed and the acquittal of the accused is upheld.
Judgment
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 4th April, 1996 in Criminal Appeal No. 381 of 1991. The High Court, by its impugned judgment and order, allowed the appeal of the appellants herein and acquitted them of the charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for which they were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 41 of 1980 by his judgment and order of 6th February, 1981.
2. We have heard counsel for the parties.
3. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 5.10.1979 at about 4.00 p.m. in village Vikrampur, P.S. Kishni. The case of the prosecution is that PW 1 Hori Lal, the deceased Netra Pal Singh, and his wife Renuka Devi, PW2 were working in the fields. The deceased sent his brother PW1 to bring a basket. His wife felt thirsty and they were going to drink water nearby when all the three accused arrived there armed with rifle, gun and country made pistol. All of them fired from behind as a result of which Netra Pal fell down and died on the spot. PW2, Renuka Devi raised an alarm. PW1 who was returning from the village after fetching a basket also saw the entire occurrence and so did Mithu Lal, PW3 who was passing by PW1, Hori Lal rushed to the police station and the first information report was recorded at 8.35 P.M. The investigating officer came to the place of occurrence and stayed overnight in the village. On the following day he recorded the statement of PW1 and PW2. The statement of PW3 was recorded on 27.11.1979 i.e. almost a month and 11 days later.
4. The Trial Court relying upon these three eye-witnesses found the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. We are told that the first appellant Ranbir Singh has since died.
5. We have considered the reasons recorded by the High Court for not relying upon the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3. No reliance can be placed on the evidence of PW3 because he was examined by the police on 27.11.1979 while the occurrence took place on 15.10.1979 and even though he was mentioned as an eye-witness in the F.I.R. He was projected as an independent witness but it appears from the evidence of PW2 that he happens to be the cousin of the deceased. In the circumstances, PW3 cannot be considered to be a reliable witness. So far as PW2 is concerned, the High Court has discussed her evidence in detail and has come to the conclusion that her presence at the time of occurrence was doubtful. The medical evidence disclosed that the deceased must have taken his meals about three hours before the occurrence since semi-digested food was found in his stomach. If PW2 was really with her husband since morning, she would have certainly stated about their having taken food. She, in the course of her deposition claimed to be at different places when the occurrence took place. At one place she stated that she was North of her husband, and at another place she stated that she was behind her husband, and later that she was 20-25 steps behind her husband. The shots were fired from behind. Having considered the discrepancies in the evidence of Renuka Devi, PW2 the High Court did not find it safe to rely on her testimony.
6. So far as Hori Lal, PW1 is concerned, he had been sent to fetch a basket from the village and it was only a matter of coincidence that while he was returning he witnessed the entire incident. The High Court did not consider it safe to rely on his testimony because his evidence clearly shows that he had an animus against the appellants. Moreover, his evidence was not corroborated by objective circumstances. Though it was his categorical case that all of them fired, no injury caused by rifle was found, and, only two wounds were found on the person of the deceased. Apart from this PW3 did not mention the presence of either PW1 or PW2 at the time of occurrence. All these circumstances, do create doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. The presence of these three witnesses becomes doubtful if their evidence is critically scrutinised. May be it is also possible to take a view in favour of the proecution, but since the High Court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, has recorded a finding in favour of the accused, we do not feel persuaded to interfere with the order of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal. It is well settled that if on the same evidence two views are reasonably possible, the one in favour of the accused must be preferred.
7. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
***************