Supreme Court of India
BHERU LAL & ORS.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 1039
- Decided
- 10 August 2009
- Bench
- V S SIRPURKAR
Holding
The Court upheld the convictions, rejecting the claims of an interested witness, the need to explain trivial injuries, and the private‑defence plea, while affirming the High Court’s possible view in acquitting A‑6.
Summary
The case involved the murder of two brothers, sons of PW‑7, and the arson of her property by a group of accused persons. The trial court convicted all seven accused under sections of the IPC including 302 and 436, but the High Court acquitted one accused (A‑6) and upheld the convictions of the remaining. The appellants (Bheru Lal, Kailash Chandra and Purushottam) challenged their convictions on three grounds: that the mother’s testimony was that of an interested witness and therefore inadmissible; that the prosecution failed to explain the insignificant injuries sustained by the accused; and that they acted in private defence. The State also filed a special leave petition against the acquittal of A‑6. The Supreme Court held that an interested witness’s evidence, if supported by a kernel of truth, is admissible, that trivial injuries do not obligate the prosecution to explain, and that the private‑defence plea was untenable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the convictions, and also dismissed the State’s petition, upholding the acquittal of A‑6.
Issues considered
- The admissibility and weight of testimony of an interested witness (the mother of the deceased).
- Whether the prosecution was required to explain the insignificant injuries on the accused.
- Whether the accused could rely on the defence of private defence of person and property.
- Whether the High Court’s acquittal of accused A‑6 was a sustainable ‘possible view’ or perverse.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 34, s. 341, s. 427, s. 435, s. 436
Subjects
murderinterested witnessprivate defenceIPC 302IPC 436evidence assessmentacquittalpossible viewinjury explanation
Judgment
[2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 212
A BHERU LAL & ORS.
v. +
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
(Criminal Appeal No. 898 of 2004)
AUGUST 10, 2009
B
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.]
PENAL CODE, 1860: ~
ss. 302134 and 436134 - Two sons of complainant
c murdered and property set on fire by accused - Conviction
by trial court upheld by High Court - HELD: Pleas of accused
regarding interested witness, non-explanation of injuries on
one of the accused, and right of private defence were rightly
rejected by courts below - Injuries on accused, being
D t-
extremely insignificant, and defence witnesses found
unbelievable, did not require any explanation from
prosecution - From the evidence of the mother of deceased,
recovery of blood stained articles and clothes it has been fully
established that accused committed the offences ..: Right of ;-
E private defence - Evidence.
EVIDENCE:
Testimony of interested witness - In a trial for murder of
two brothers, testimony of their mother as the sole eye witness
.
F
- Challenged by accused as evidence of interested witness
- HELD: Testimony of the witness about assault by accused
on her sons has totally gone unchallenged in cross-
examination - Merely because a witness exaggerates or is
an interested witness, the evidence cannot be thrown out.
G
APPEAL
-¥
Appeal against acquittal - High Court in appeal
acquitting one of the accused convicted by trial court - HELO:
H 212
-
\
BHERU LAL & ORS. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 213
+ High Court has taken a possible view and there cannot be any A
interference as it has not been shown that acquittal of the said
accused is unsustainable or perverse.
The three appellants along with four others faced trial
for commission of offences punishable ulss. 147, 148 and B
302 read with s.149 IPC. The prosecution case was that
the accused killed two sons of PW-7. Accused 1 and 3
attacked her son "5" with sword and accused 4 and
accused 5 attacked her other son "D" with sword and
spear. Accused 1 and 6 crushed the heads of the
deceased with stones. Thereafter, A-1, A-3 and A-5 set on
c
fire her tractor trolly and stack of onion and groundnut.
The trial court convicted A-1 and A-3 to A-6 of the
offences charged. On appeal, the High Court acquitted A-
6; convicted and sentenced A-1 uls.302 IPC and uls.436
read with s.34 IPC. The remaining three accused were D
convicted and sentenced u/s.302 read with s.34 and s.436
read with s.34 IPC.
In the appeal filed by A-1, A-3 and A-5 it was, inter
alia, contended for the appellants that PW-7 was an E
interested witness and, therefore, the courts below erred
in relying upon her evidence; and that the accused acted
in exercise of their right of private defence. The State filed
petition for special leave against acquittal of A-6.
F
Dismissing the appeal as also the petition for special
leave, the Court
HELD: 1.1. PW-7, the mother of the deceased,
claimed to have seen the incident from some distance,
and has graphically described the role played by the G
'f- appellants-accused-1, 3 and 5. According to her, A-1 had
given a sword blow on the neck of 'S' and A-3 gave a
sword blow on his hand, while A-4 gave a blow with a
sword on the neck of '8' and A-5 hit '8' with Ballam. She
then described that A-1 pelted stones on them and the H
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2Q09] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A other accused persons also stoned them, as a result of +
which their heads were crushed. She has thereafter said
that even she was followed up to the house and
thereafter, the accused persons set articles in her house
and tractor on fire. There could hardly be any doubt
B regarding the presence of this witness on the spot.
Significantly enough, there is no cross-examination in
respect of the incident and v~rsion of PW-7 about the
assault by the accused on her sons and the same has
totally gone unchallenged. About the gun and the katta
c being found near the body, the witness has specifically
refuted the suggestion that the deceased persons had
gone there with an idea to assault the accused persons.
She also refuted the suggestion that village persons had
given beating to her sons. [Para 7 and 8] [221-D-H; 222-
D 8-C-F; 223-A]
1.2. There can be no doubt that PW-7 has
exaggerated, but those exaggerations have been rightly
ignored. She was deposing about the assault on her sons
and as such, she certainly would not be interested in
E allowing the real culprits to go unpunished. Merely
because a witness exaggerates or is an interested
witness, the evidence cannot be thrown, where it is found
that there is a ring of truth to the version of the witness.
The task of the courts is to separate the chaff from the
F grain and that is exactly what has been done by the trial
court as well as the appellate court. The court of facts,
which appreciates the evidence, should show that it was
aware of the fact that the witness is an interested
witness. Once that realization comes from the evidence,
G then there is nothing wrong if the evidence of such
person is believed. In fact, there were as many as 7
accused persons. A-6 and another woman have already
been acquitted by the courts below. [Para 8] (223-8-D]
2. As regards injuries on the accused there can be
H
BHERU LAL & ORS. v.' STATE OF RAJASTHAN 215
no dispute that A-3 had suffered injuries on the day of A
~
occurrence. The doctor has certified (Ext.B-2) that all the
injuries are simple in nature. In his cross-examination, the
doctor very specifically admitted that none of the injury
was serious in nature. The trial court and the appellate
court scanned the injuries and held that even if they were B
established to have been suffered by A-3, the same were
extremely insignificant and, therefore, did not require any
t explanation on the part of the prosecution and it cannot
be said that the prosecution, in not explaining those
injuries, had suppressed the genesis of the incident. [Para c
9 and 11] [223-F; 224-A-E]
State of Rajasthan vs. Madho & Anr. 1991 Suppl. (2)
SCC 396; State of Bihar vs. Mohammad Khursheed 1971 (3)
i
SCC 423; Jagdish vs. State of Rajasthan 1979(2) SCC 178,
relied on. D
3.1. So far as the plea of right of private defence is
concerned, it was stated that deceased '8' was armed
with 12 Bore Gun and there was a katta with the other
deceased. The injuries suffered by A-3 are incised E
wounds attributable only to sharp edged weapon and are
simple in nature. There was no recovery of any sharp
edged weapon from the place of incident. Though A-1
and A-3 had entered the witness box, their evidence does
not support their stand nor is their evidence reliable in F
view of the inter se contradictions in their evidence
regarding the presence of A-4 and A-6. Nothing has come
out in the evidence, suggesting that the appellants were
put under the situation, where they could reasonably had
apprehended any grievous hurt to any of them. On the
G
other hand, the defence came out with a fantastic theory
'j. that the deceased persons were killed by the villagers. It
is significant to consider as to whether the injuries
suffered by A-3 were actually caused during the incident.
What is most significant is that A-3 and A-1 after the
H
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 13·(ADDL.) S.C.R.
A incident, chose to go to a different police station after five -+
hours of the incident and not to the police station that had
jurisdiction. It is after reaching the said police station, A-
3 chose to go to the hospital there. All this has been
considered by the trial court as also the appellate court
B and both the courts have come to the conclusion that
both these witnesses were unreliable. Considering the
overall evidence of the two defence witnesses, it is
extremely doubtful whether the injuries were caused ....
during the incident. [Para 11, 12 and 13] [225-C-H; 226-
c A-C; 227-8-E]
3.2. PW-7 who had seen the incident from a distance
could not have been in a position to even notice any
injury on the body of A-3. She had afterall seen her two
sons being assaulted mercilessly and being dealt with by
D tile accused. She, therefore, asserted that she did not see
any injury at that time on the person of A-3. Therefore,
evidence of PW-7 cannot be rejected on this point and
the trial court and the appellate courts are right in relying
on her evidence. Once evidence of PW-7 is believed then
E there would be no question of going to any other piece
of evidence as her evidence by itself is sufficient to
convict the accused as was rightly done by the trial court
and the appellate court. This is apart from the fact that
the recovery memo Ex.P-11, P-12, P-13 and P-14 through
F which blood stained spear, blood stained lathi, blood
stained sword were recovered from A-1, A-3, A-5 and A-4
as also Ex. 15, the recovery memo of the blood stained
clothes which were recovered from A-1 as also Ex. C-1,
the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report provide
G enough corroboration to the evidence of PW-7. [Para 13,
14 and 15] [227-F; 228-A-D]
3.3. From the evidence led on behalf of the
prosecution, the eye witness account by PW-7 and the
other substantial evidence of recovery of the blood
H
BHERU LAL & ORS. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 217
stained articles and clothes, it is fully established that the A
accused persons not on.ly murdered '8' and 'S' but also
committed the offence u/s. 436 read with s. 34, IPC by
setting on fire the tractor and household articles of the
complainant; and the theory propounded by the defence
that they acted in exercise of their right to private defence B
is baseless, and has been rightly rejected. [Para 15 and
16] [228-F-H; 229-A]
4.2. As regards the petition filed by the State against
the acquittal of A-6, there is no substantial material C
against A-6. The High Court has taken a possible view of
the matter and has given good reasons for his acquittal.
It is trite that when ~ possible view is taken, then there
cannot be an interference in an appeal against acquittal
unless it is shown that the acquittal is unsustainable or
perverse. Such is not the position here. [Para 18] [229-B- D
C]
Case Law Reference:
1991 Suppl. (2) sec 396 relied on para 9
E
1971(3) sec 423 relied on para 9
1979(2) sec 178 relied on para 9
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 898 of 2004. F
From the Judgment & Order dated 14.10.2003 of the High
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in D.B.
Criminal Appeal No. 998 of 2001.
WITH G
SLP (Crl.) No. 169 of 2005.
Manish Singhvi, Addi. A.G. Sushi! Kr. Jain, Pratibha Jain,
Puneet Jain, Archana Tiwari, Gopal Krishna for the appearing
parties. H
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 13 (ADDL) S.C.R.
A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
+
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of the
Criminal Appeal No. 898 of 2004 filed by three appellants as
also the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Rajasthan
against the acquittal of one of the accused who was convicted
B
by the Trial Court but was acquitted by the High Court. The three
accused persons, namely, original accused No. 1 Bheru Lal,
original accused No.3, Kailash Chandra and original accused
No. 5, Purushottam have come up before us challenging their
conviction for various offences including offences under
c Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, Indian Penal
Code (for short "!PC"), 436 read with Section 149, IPC and
confirmed by the High Court. Originally, as many as seven
accused persons were tried for all these offences. However,
the Sessions Judge convicted in all five accused persons
D including the present three appellants and two others, namely,
Girraj, original accused No. 6 and Gopal, original accused No.4.
The High Court allowed the appeal of accused Girraj and
acquitted him. It confirmed the conviction and sentence of the
remaining four accused persons. In that, the Court convicted
E Bheru Lal for the offence under Section 302, !PC simpliciter and
for offence under Section 436 read with Section 34, IPC. The ·
remaining three accused were also convicted for the offence
under Section 302 and Section 436 read with Section 34, !PC.
F 2. In short, the High Court rejected the offences having
been committed by the unlawful assembly and set aside their
convictions ordered by the Trial Court which were in the aid of
Section 149, IPC and held that the offences were committed
in furtherance of the common intention of the accused persons.
Out of the four accused persons so convicted, only three have
G
come up before us. Originally, the appeal seems to have been
filed on behalf of all the four accused including Gopal but the ~ . ,,
name of Gop~~as thereafter removed from the array of
appellants. We enquired from the Registry as to whether Gopal
had filed any appeal but we were informed that there was no
H
(
BHERU LAL & ORS. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 219
[VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]
appeal filed by him. We are, therefore, left with the appeal filed A
i- by the three appellants named above.
3. Shortly stated the prosecution case is that one Basanti
Bai, PW-7 lodged a report with police station Raipur, District
Jhalawar on 26.10.1997 at about 4:30 p.m. to the effect that
B
her sons, Shayam Lal and Balkishan were belaboured by the
seven accused persons. It was further stated that the appellant
Bheru Lal and Kailash Chandra had inflicted sword blows on
the left and right hand and neck of Shayam Lal while appellant
Purushottam and Gopal gave sword and spear blows,
respectively, on the back and head of Balkishan. Thus all the
c
appellants had indiscrimlnately inflicte\J injuries on the person
of deceased Shayam Lal and Balkishan, while appellant Girraj
and Bheru Lal crushed their heads with stones. It was further
alleged that after this ghastly incident, the appellants had set
i at fire the tractor trolley, stack of onion and groundnut. Offence D
was registered on these basis and after due investigation as
many as seven persons came to be charged of offences under
Section 147, 148, 341, 302, IPC and in the alternative Section
302 read with Sections 149, 436, IPC substantively as well as
Section 436 read with Section 149, IPC as also Section 435 E
and 435 read with Section 149, IPC and Section 427 and in
the alternative Section 427 read with Section 149, IPC. As has
been stated earlier two of the accused persons were acquitted
by the Trial Court and now we are left with this appeal at the
instance of the three accused. F
4. Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants firstly urged that the evidence of the eye witness,
namely, PW-7, Basanti Bai and the other eye witnesses,
namely, Ram Prasad (PW-3), Kanwar Lal (PW-5) and Puri Lal
G
(PW-6) was wrongly relied upon by the Trial Court as well as
~-
the High Court. It was pointed out that barring Basanti Bai (PW-
7), all these witnesses had turned hostile and, therefore, the
prosecution was left with the evidence of Basanti Bai alone.
Learned counsel urged that Basanti Bai was the mother of the
H
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A deceased persons and there was enmity between the accused
persons and her family which had emanated from the property
dispute. Learned counsel pointed out that both the deceased
as well as the accused were relatives of each other and there
was a property feud amongst the two sides which had caused
s this ghastly incident. Learned counsel dubbed the evidence of
Basanti Bai as being untrustworthy and unnatural. He further
pointed out that other witnesses, namely, Ram Prasad (PW-
3), Kanwar Lal (PW-5) and Puri Lal (PW-6) who were the
occupants of the nearby places of the incident had refused to
c support the prosecution as the accused persons had no hand
in the incident complained of. It was further suggested that
Basanti Bai had claimed to have seen the incident from a
distance of about 200-250 steps and on that count also she
was not in a position to see the ·incident. However, she had
given the graphic description of the role played by each
0
accused which makes her evidence suspicious.
5. Learned counsel also urged that a gun and Katta
(country made pistol) were found near the body of the deceased
which suggested that the deceased Shayam Lal and Balkishan
E had gone to the place of incident prepared and with intention
to cause grievous hurt or death of the appellant Kailash
Chandra. However, since the gun did not fire (on account of
development of dampness) they did not succeed in their object
and, therefore, the villagers, being angry killed the deceased ~·
F on the place of the incident itself. It was also pointed out that
the appellant Kailash Chandra had 11 injuries on the various
parts of the body which remained unexplained by the
prosecution and thus it was obvious that the prosecution had
not unfolded its case properly and had suppressed the generis
G of the incident. Alternatively, the argument proceeds on the
basis that there was a right of private defence of body as well
as the property. It was also urged by the learned counsel that
the so-called discoveries of the weapons were farcical and
further since the blood group of the blood allegedly found on
H the weapons could not be decided that evidence was also of
BHERU LAL & ORS. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 221
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
no consequence. In short, learned counsel urged that the whole A
i· prosecution story was unbelievable and, therefore, the
appellants were entitled to be acqu.itted.
6. As against this the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the State, Shri Manish Singhvi, Additional Advocate General B
for the State of Rajasthan wholly supported the judgments and
urged that the prosecution had fully proved its version and the
Courts below had rightly convicted the accused-appellants. Shri
t Singhvi also pressed in service the appeal filed on behalf of
the State of Rajasthan against the acquittal of accused Girraj,
and pointed out that the accused Girraj could not have been
c
acquitted as he was present throughout and had taken active
part in the whole affair. Shri Singhvi severally criticized the High
Court judgment in· so far as it pertained to the acquittal of
accused Girraj.
'# D
7. Basanti Bai, PW-7, undoubtedly, was an interested
witness being mother of the deceased persons. Some
evidence has. come on record that everything was not well
between the two families of the deceased and the accused.
Her evidence was, therefore, dubbed as the "evidence of an E
interested witness". Her evidence was criticized as
untrustworthy and unnatural. The other witnesses, namely, Ram
Prasad (PW-3), Kanwar Lal (PW-5) and Puri Lal (PW-6) have
~ not chosen to support the prosecution and they were rightly
declared hostile. We have, therefore, gone through the F
evidence of Basanti Bai very closely. There can be no dispute
that in her evidence, she has also roped in Girraj (original
accused No. 6), Badam Bai (co-accused) and Tara Bai (co-
accused) and that was an exaggeration on her part. She
claimed to have seen the incident from some distance, but has
G
graphically described the role played by accused Bheru Lal,
Kailash Chandra and Purushottam, the appellants herein.
-+-
,, According to her, Bheru Lal had given a sword blow on the
neck of Shayam Lal and Kailash Chandra gave a sword blow
on the hand of Shayam Lal, while Gopal gave a blow with a
H
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A sword on the neck of Balkishan and Purushottam hit Balkishan
with Ballam (spear like weapon). She has not stopped here,
-r
but has assigned a role specifically to Girraj, Badam Bai and
Tara Bai, as also her daughters-in-law, saying that they also
gave blows with the sticks. She then described that Bheru Lal
B pelted stones on them and the other accused persons also
stoned them, as a result of which their heads were crushed.
She has thereafter said that even she was followed up to the
house and thereafter, the accused persons set articles in her ~
house and tractor or. fire. There could hardly be any doubt
c regarding the presence of this witness on the spot. She candidly
admitted that when her sons Balkishan and Shayam Lal had
left the house, they might have taken gun and a katta (country
made revolver) with them. She, however, denied that the said
gun and the katta were lying near the bodies of her sons. She
D naturally refuted the suggestions made to her that her sons had
gone armed only to give beating to Kailash Chandra and
Purushottam. She also refuted the suggestion that village
persons had given beating to her sons. She asserted that she
did not see any injury on Kailash Chandra at the place of
occurrence and no such injury was caused to Kailash Chandra
E
by any sharp edged weapon.
8. Significantly enough, there is not even an iota of cross-
examination in respect of the incident and her version about ,._
the assault by the accused on her sons and the same has totally
F gone unchallenged. There can be no dispute about her being
an interested witness, as also her having exaggerated her
version. There can also be no dispute that she has specifically
denied there being any injuries on Kailash Chandra, which
injuries were ultimately proved. However, that by itself, will not
G make her evidence unbelievable. We have taken into
consideration that here was a mother, who was deposing about
the assault on her sons and she certainly would not be .;-
interested in allowing the real culprits to go unpunished. The ..:._
task of the Courts is to separate the chaff from the grain and
H that is exactly what has been done by the Trial Court, as well
BHERU LAL & ORS. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 223
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
as, the Appellate Court. About the gun and the katta being A
-+ found near the body, the witness has specifically refuted the
suggestion that the deceased persons had gone there with an
idea to assault the accused persons. We are not much
impressed by the argument of the Learned Counsel for the
appellants that this witness had tried to mislead the Court on B
the genesis of the case and, therefore, her whole version
becomes suspicious. There is a definite ring of truth. There can
,,. be no doubt that the witness has exaggerated, but as has been
stated earlier, those exaggerations would have to be ignored
and have been rightly ignored. In fact, there were as many as c
7 accused persons. Accused Girraj and accused Tara Bai have
already been acquitted by the Courts below. However, merely
because a witness exaggerates or is an interested witness, the
evidence cannot be thrown, where it is found that there is a ring
of truth to the version of the witness. The Court of facts, which
~ " appreciates the evidence, should show that they were aware
of the fact that the witness is an interested witness. Once that
D
realization comes from the evidence, then there is nothing
wrong if the evidence of such person is believed.
9. It was suggested by Shri Jain that Basanti Bai had not E
admitted or deposed about the injury suffered by the accused.
Our attention was invited to the evidence of DW-1, Dr. Chandra
Kishore Srivastava and DW-2, Kailash Chandra. Dr. Chandra
Kishore Srivastava in his evidence has established that he had
examined Kailash Chandra and found that he had suffered as F
many as 11 injuries. Kailash Chandra himself also, when he
entered the witness box, established his own injuries. There can
be no dispute that Kailash Chandra had suffered injuries on that
day. The evidence of the doctor shows that he had suffered 10
incised wounds. Most of the injuries were on the left side of the G
body, one of them on the left hand, one on left wrist, one on left
f- palm and one on the scapular region. The other injuries were
on the right upper arm on the lower side. The other injuries
include two injuries on the right upper arm on the lower side
while one appears to be on left frontal part of the head 3 inch H
224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
"")
A above the left eyebrow. The doctor has certified that all these
injuries including even the contusion suffered was a simple -t-
injury, that is clear from the report Ex. B-2. In his cross-
examination, the doctor very specifically admitted that none of
the injury was serious in nature nor was any one of them
B sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and
they were s!mple. It is true that Kailash Chandra had also given
a report on which case No. 190 of 1997 was registered. On
the basis of this, the learned counsel pointed out that if PW-7 ~
Basanti Bai had not mentioned or denied these injuries in her
c evidence then it was clear that she was lying in the most
significant point and thus was trying to hide the genesis of the
incident and the prosecution story, therefore, was shrouded in
suspicion. Shri Jain, for this proposition, has. relied on a number
of decisions like State of Rajasthan v. Madho & Anr. [1991
Suppl.(2) SCC 396], State of Bihar v. Mohaf[lmad Khursheed
D
[1971 (3) SCC 423]. We, therefore, examined her evidence
from this angle also. On the other hand, learned counsel
' ..,
appearing on behalf of the State relied on the judgment
reported in Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan [(1979) 2 SCC 178].
There can be no dispute that this evidence was scanned by the
E trial Court and the Appellate Court which held that the injuries,
even if they were established to have been suffered by Kailash
Chandra, were extremely insignificant injuries and, therefore,
those injuries did not need any explanation on the part of the
prosecution. The witness undoubtedly states in her cross
F examination, "I did not see any injury to the Kailash Chandra
·-
on spot. Kailash Chandra was not injured with sharp weapon".
In the judgment of Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan [(1979) 2 SCC
178] this Court has specifically observed that:
G "there is an obligation on the prosecution to explain the
injuries so as to satisfy the Court as to the circumstances
under which the occurrence originated. Before this +
obligation is placed on the prosecution, two conditions
must be satisfied:
H
-'
BHERU LAL & ORS. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 225
[VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]
-f (1) that the injuries on the person of the accused must A
be very serious and severe and not superficial;
(2) that it must be shown that these injuries must have
been caused at the time of the occurrence in
question." 8
10. Thus it is very doubtful as to whether the injuries had
been caused at the time of occurrence as such.
11. Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, appearing on behalf of the
Learned Counsel for the appellants spoke about the right of c
private defence on the basis of the fact that Balkishan was
armed with 12 Bore Gun and there was a katta being carried
by the other deceased. Kailash Chandra, undoubtedly, has
suffered some injuries, but all those injuries are simple in nature .
... We have seen the Injury Report (Exhibit 0-2), which suggests
·- D
that they were very insignificant injuries, which were placed not
on the vital portions of the body. We are in agreement with the
High Court and the; Trial Court that the non-explanation of those
injuries cannot be advantageous to the defence nor can it be
said that the prosecution, in not explaining those injuries, had
E
suppressed the genesis of the incident. We have very carefully
seen the cross-examination of Basanti Bai, who was not even
asked about the deceased being armed with any sharp edged
~.
weapon, so as to cause injuries to Kailash Chandra, who
sustained about 10 incised wounds, attributable only to the
F
assault by a sharp weapon. There was no recovery of any sharp
edged weapon from the place of incident or even from the
person of the deceased and even the Investigating Officer was
not asked anything about any sharp edged weapon being used
by the deceased. The accused persons had shown the courage
to enter the witness box. We have seen their evidence carefully. G
'f However, we are of the opinion that their evidence does not
take us too far nor is their evidence reliable in view of the inter
se contradictions in the evidence of Kailash Chandra and
Bheru Lal regarding the presence of Gopal and Girraj. Nothing
has come out in the prosecution case, suggesting that the H
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A appellants were put under the situation, where they could +
reasonably had apprehended any grievous hurt to even one of
them. On the other hand, the defence came out with a fantastic
theory that the deceased persons were killed by the villagers.
12. The law is now well settled that wh~re there is a failure
B
on the part of the prosecution witness to explain injuries on the
accused caused in the same incident,· implicit reliance cannot
be placed on the prosecution which suppressed part of the ~
incident. The two rulings cited by Shri Jain do support this
proposition. The question is, however, whether the injuries
c suffered by Kailash Chandra were actually caused during the
incident and they were substantial enough so as to attract the
attention of the witness and whether the witness haQ any
oppqrtunity to see the injuries as such. When Kailash Chandra
stepped into the witness box, he deposed that deceased ~
D Shayam Lal had a spear in his hand and a loaded Katta in his _.
pocket. He further evidenced that Balkishan and Shayam Lal
abused his sister and mother and pointed out the gun at them
and when Balkishan's gun failed to fire, he attacked with sword
on his right hand at several places. He further asserted that had ~
E he not taken sword in his hand, he would have died. In his
examination-in-chief also he had suggested that Balkishan had
a sword besides a 12 bore loaded gun. In hi.s_ cross
examination, he claimed complete ignorance as to what had ~·
happened with Balkishan and Shayam Lal. He also went to the
F extent of suggesting that he did not know as to how they died.
The evidence of this witness has been disbelieved totally by
both the Courts below. It is very significant to see that the
evidence of DW-2 Bherulal also is to the same effect that
Balkishan was beating Kailash Chandra with the sword and he
G also had a gun with him. Bherulal was at least candid enough
to admit that Shayam Lal and Balkishan had died in the same
--t'
incident, however, both these witnesses brought about a
fantastic theory that villagers had attacked Balkishan and
Shayam Lal and they were killed in the same incident. What is
H most significant is that Kailash Chandra and Bherulal, after the
BHERU LAL & ORS. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 227
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
-+ incident, chose to go to Sunair after five hours of the incident A
and did not go to Raipur police station under which jurisdiction
all this had taken place. It is after reaching Sunair that Kailash
Chandra chose to go to the hospital at Sunaii. All this has been
··•
' considered by the Trial Court as also the Appellate Court and
both the Courts have come to the conclusion that both these B
witnesses were unreliable witnesses. There can be no doubt
that they claimed to have been injured in the same incident but
that by itself would not be sufficient because there does not
appear to be any sword seized by the police on the spot. If
Balkishan and Shayam Lal had carried a sword for injuring this c
witness and if both of them died on the spot, surely the sword
could not have disappeared.
13. Therefore, both the Courts were right in disbelieving
the story put forth by these two accused-witnesses. However,
the question still remains that there were injuries which have D
been seen by the doctor much after the incident. As per the '\
\
evidence, the report was made in the police station Sunair \
.. which was about 15 KM from the village Himmatgarh. There
.-. can be no dispute about the proposition that the injuries on the
person of the accused must be explained. However, E
considering the overall evidence of the two defence witnesses,
it is extremely doubtful whether the injuries were caused during
the incident. This is apart from the fact that Basanti Bai who
had seen the incident from a distance could not have been in
a position to even notice any injury on the body of Kailash F
Chandra. She had afterall seen her two sons being assaulted
mercilessly and being dealt with by the accused. She, therefore,
asserted that she did not see any injury at that time on the
person of Kailash Chandra.
G
_,_ 14. In order to reap the benefit of the proposition laid down
by this Court, there must be an opportunity to the witness to
watch and there must be deliberate refusal on the part of the
witness to explain the injuries if the witness is not in a position
to note the injuries or if the Court comes to the conclusion that
H
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
it was not possible for the witness to see any injuries or that
,._
A
the injuries were not actually caused during the incident itself
then the defence will not be able to reap any benefit. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that Basanti Bai's evidenc13 cannot be
rejected on this point and that the Trial and the Appellate Courts
B are right in relying on her evidence. Once Basanti Bai's
evidence is believed then there would be no question of going
to any other piece of evidence as her evidence by itself is
sufficient to convict the accused as was rightly done by the Trial ""'
Court and the Appellate Court.
c 15. This is apart from the fact that the recovery memo
Ex.P-11, P-12, P-13 and P-14 through which blood stained
spear, blood stained lathi, blood stained sword were recovered
from Bheru Lal, Kailash Chandra, Purushottam and Gopal as
also Ex. 15, the recovery memo of the blood stained clothes ~
D which were recovered from Bherulal as also Ex. C-1, the
Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report provide enough
corroboration to the evidence of Basanti Bai. We are, therefore,
of the considered opinion that: . ,
~
E "firstly, it is completely established that the appellants as
also the other accused who has not filed appeal had
caused the murder of Shayam Lal and Balkishan;
,._
secondly, the theory propounded by the defence that it was
done in the exercise of right to private defence is baseless )·
F and has been rightly rejected; ~
·thirdly, that the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution,
the eye witness account by Basanti Bai PW-7 and the other
substantial evidence of recovery of the blood stained
G articles and clothes is fully established."
....
16. Further it is fully established that the accused persons
not only murdered Balkishan and Shayam Lal but also
..
committed the offence under Section 436 read with Section 34,
IPC by setting at fire the tractor and household articles of the
H
BHERU LAL & ORS. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 229
[VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]
complainant. A
17. No other point was urged before us. The appeal has
no merits, it is accordingly dismissed.
18. At this stage, Shri Manish Singhvi, Learned Counsel
for the State pressed the petition filed by the State against the B
acquittal of Girraj (original accused No. 6). We have seen the
judgment of the High Court carefully. We do not find any
substantial material against original accused No. 6 Girraj. The
High Court has given good reasons for his acquittal. The High
Court has taken a possible view of the matter. It is trite that when C
a possible view is taken, then there cannot be an interference
in an appeal against acquittal unless it is shown that the
acquittal is unsustainable or perverse. Such is not the position
here. In that view of the matter, we dismiss the Special Leave
Petition (Criminal) No. 169 of 2005 filed by the State. D
RP. Matters dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search