KARULAL & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

494                      [2020]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    9 S.C.R. 494                  [2020] 9 S.C.R.


A                              KARULAL & ORS.
                                         v.
                     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        (Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 2011)
B                              OCTOBER 09, 2020
                    [N. V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT AND
                           HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
            Penal Code, 1860:
C           ss. 148, 302/149 – Prosecution under – Three eye-witnesses
      – Conviction by Courts below – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held:
      Prosecution version is cogent and supported by consistent testimony
      of three eye-witnesses which is further corroborated by medical
      evidence – The facts that two of the eye-witnesses were related and
      that some of the witnesses turned hostile, will not affect the
D
      prosecution case.
            Evidence:
            Related witness – Evidentiary value of – Held: Testimony of
      related witness, if found to be truthful, can be the basis of conviction.
E           Criminal Trial:
            Plea of false implication – On account of previous enmity –
      Held: Plea not sustainable – If the witnesses are otherwise
      trustworthy, past enmity by itself will not discredit any testimony.

F           Dismissing the appeal, the Court
            HELD: 1. PW11 is an unrelated witness. His testimony
      substantially supports the evidence of PW3 and PW12 in all
      material particulars. In any case, being related to the deceased
      does not necessarily mean that they will falsely implicate innocent
      persons. The testimony of the related witness, if found to be
G
      truthful, can be the basis of conviction and there is every reason
      to believe that PW3 and PW12 were immediately present at the
      spot and identified the accused with various deadly weapons in
      their hands. [Paras 19 and 20][501-E-F; 502-B-C]

H
                                        494
  KARULAL & ORS. v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                          495


       Dalip Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC                 A
       364 : [1954] SCR 145; State of Uttar Pradesh v.
       Samman Dass (1972) 3 SCC 201 : [1972] 3 SCR 58;
       Khurshid Ahmed v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2018)
       7 SCC 429 : [2018] 6 SCR 1121 – relied on.
       2. If the witnesses are otherwise trustworthy, past enmity        B
by itself will not discredit any testimony. In fact the history of bad
blood gives a clear motive for the crime. Therefore this aspect
does not aid the defence in the present matter. [Para 22][502-G]
       Sushil & Ors. v. State of U.P. (1995) 1 Suppl. SCC 363
       : [1994] 5 Suppl. SCR 294 – relied on.
                                                                         C
       3. There are enough material evidence and trustworthy
testimonies which clearly support the case against the accused
and the prosecution need not fail on the count that few of the
witnesses had not supported the prosecution case and were
declared to be hostile. Some witness may not support the
prosecution story for their own reasons and in such situation, it        D
is necessary for the Court to determine whether the other
available evidence comprehensively proves the charge. In the
present case, the prosecution version is cogent and supported
by three eyewitnesses who have given a consistent account of
the incident. Their testimonies are corroborated by the medical
                                                                         E
evidence. The Trial Court had elaborately discussed the evidence
of both sides and came to a logical conclusion which inspires
confidence. Therefore, the hostile witnesses will not affect the
conviction of the appellants. The conviction of the appellants was
rightly ordered and correctly upheld by the High Court.
[Paras 23 and 24][503-G-H; 504-A-B]                                      F
                        Case Law Reference
[1954] SCR 145                    relied on              Para 18
[1972] 3 SCR 58                   relied on              Para 19
[2018] 6 SCR 1121                 relied on              Para 20
                                                                         G
[1994] 5 Suppl. SCR 294           relied on              Para 21
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
316 of 2011.
       From the Judgment and Order dated 23.06.2009 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 1637 of
                                                                         H
1999.
496            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 9 S.C.R.


A          Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, Dy.AG, T. Mahipal, Arjun Garg,
      Ms. Shrutika Garg, Advs. for the appearing parties.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            HRISHIKESH ROY, J.

B            1. This Appeal has been preferred by 5 accused, namely,
      Karulal(A-5), Amra(A-6), Kachru(A-7), Suratram(A-8) and
      Bhagirath(A-9). They challenge the judgment and order dated 23.6.2009
      in Criminal Appeal No.1637 of 1999 whereby, the Madhya Pradesh
      High Court, Indore Bench approved the conviction of the appellants
      under Section 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code,
C     1860 (for short “the IPC”) and the resultant sentence for such conviction
      ordered by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur (hereinafter
      referred to as, “the learned Trial Court”).
              2. The prosecution case is that at about 8-8.30AM Madhavji the
      deceased, was present in his fields on 18.8.1993 and his son Bhawarlal
D     (PW3) was grazing cattle nearby. Bhawarlal suddenly heard his father
      cry out and saw that Amra, Kachru, Karu, Surtaram, Lalu (who is now
      dead) and Bhagirath were attacking his father with axe, sword, farsa,
      lathi, etc. On hearing commotion, Shyambai (PW 13), daughter of the
      deceased, and Bhawarlal (PW9) son of Kaniram and Babulal (PW12),
      also reached the spot. On seeing them, the accused ran away. Bhawarlal
E
      then arranged a bullock cart and took his injured father towards
      Narayangarh. When they were crossing the houses of the accused,
      Badambai, Munnabai, Ramibai, Sitabai and Veniram s/o Kachru, blocked
      the cart and tried to prevent PW3 from lodging the report and they also
      threatened to kill. But as other persons gathered around, the cart could
F     proceed towards Narayangarh. On the way Madhavji died. Bhawarlal
      and Babulal reached Narayangarh Police Station with the dead body
      and lodged report at about 11.55 AM, within four hours of the incident.
      The distance between the police station and the spot is about 8 Kilometres.
             3. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed
G     against six accused under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 of
      the IPC. Four others namely, Badambai, Munnabai, Ramibai and Sitabai
      were charged under Section 506 IPC as they allegedly obstructed and
      threatened the Informant, when they were proceeding with the injured
      in the bullock cart.

H
  KARULAL & ORS. v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                             497
               [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

       4. On evaluating the evidence against the 4 ladies charged under     A
Section 506 IPC, the Trial judge held that this charge of obstruction and
threat to kill the Informant, has not been proved and accordingly ordered
for their acquittal.
       5. Then the evidence against the accused who were charged under
Section 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC was considered. To prove         B
its case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom, PW 1
witnessed the arrest of the accused. Four others, i.e. Kishanlal(PW6),
Prabhulal (PW7), Bhawarlal(PW9) s/o Kaniram and Nanuram(PW13)
had turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.
Dr. P.N. Shrivastav (PW2) had performed the autopsy on the body of
the deceased and noted the following nine injuries on his person:           C

      (1) Incise wound 4" x 2" x 1/2" on left side of head with some
      pointed object.
      (2) Compound fracture on right tumor and swelling around it which
      was hard and appeared to have been afflicted by some blunt object.    D
      (3) Compound fracture of right Radioulna bone caused by some
      blunt object.
      (4) Compound fracture of left Tumor wound caused by a hard
      blunt object.
                                                                            E
      (5) Cut wound on upper left arm 2" x 1" x 1/2" left Brachial bone
      with cut with dried blood inflicted with some sharp object.
      (6) Compound fracture of left “Alna” with dried blood caused
      with some hard blunt object.
      (7) Cut wound measuring 2x2x1" on right ankle with dried blood        F
      with some hard and blunt object resulting in cut veins.
      (8) Compound fracture or right Tibia and Fabula with some hard
      and blunt object.
      (9) Cut wound 2 x 2-1/2" on left thigh with cut veins and cut
      Femoral Artery with dried blood caused with some hard and cutting     G
      object.
      6. According to the Doctor, the death was result of the bleeding
following the injuries inflicted by hard, blunt and sharp-edged weapons
and shock. He further opined during cross examination as under:
                                                                            H
498            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 9 S.C.R.


A           “Death of Madhav was caused as a cumulative effect of various
            injuries caused to his body. Injuries to the Tibia, Fabula, Radius
            and Alna and Humor bone shall not be fatal unless those are various
            serious. No fracture was found in the injury listed at no.1. If any
            person falls in the Nullah and suffers injuries from the rocks lying
            underneath and if his hands and feet come in contact with those
B
            rocks, fracture to Fabula, Tibia, Radius and Alna are possible as a
            result thereof.”
             7. Bhawarlal (PW3), Babulal (PW11) and Shyamkalabai (PW12)
      were the eyewitnesses of the incident. In his testimony, Bhanwar Lal,
      son of the deceased, stated that on 18.8.1993 morning he was grazing
C     his oxen in the nearby field when he heard the anguished cry of Madhavji
      and while running towards his father, the PW3 saw Lala, Karu, Amra,
      Kachru, Surat Ram and Bhagirath attacking his father. His sister Shyam
      Kala (PW12) also reached the field. According to the (PW3), Lala and
      Amra were armed with lathis, Surat Ram was holding knife, Kachru
D     had a sword, Karuji was holding an axe having edges like Farsa, Bhagirath
      too was holding an axe. The son rushed home and arranged a bullock
      cart where the injured Madhavji was placed and then they proceeded to
      the Narayangarh police station where he lodged the FIR. The PW3 also
      mentioned that injured Madhavji had told him in the field itself, before he
      went to fetch the bullock cart that Lala, Amru, Kachru, Surat Ram and
E     Bhagirath had assaulted him.
            8. Shyam Kala Bai (PW12) is the daughter of the deceased. While
      heading towards field, she heard shrieks for help from her father who
      was shouting that Lalaji’s sons were attacking him. She rushed to the
      place of occurrence and saw her brother Bhanwar Lal (PW3) and Babu
F     Lal(PW11) also reaching the spot. She saw her father in an injured
      condition and the accused running away with various weapons in their
      hand. She accompanied her injured father in the bullock cart with her
      brother and stated that Madhavji expired on the way to Narayangarh.
             9. On the day of the incident, Babu Lal (PW11) was walking
G     towards his village after spending the night in the residence of the
      deceased. In the morning he had tea with Madhavji who then went
      ahead to his field. While proceeding a little later, the witness heard
      Madhavji shouting that he was being killed. When the PW11 rushed to
      the field, he noticed the accused attacking Madhavji with lethal arms.
H     Madhavji had suffered a head injury from an axe blow, apart from other
  KARULAL & ORS. v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                               499
               [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

injuries to his hands and feet. The witness placed the injured on the         A
bullock cart driven by the son (PW3). The witness was following the
bullock cart on his foot. Madhavji had expired while proceeding towards
Narayangarh.
       10. On evaluating the evidence, the learned Trial Court found that
the six accused (including Lala who died), being armed with lethal            B
weapons, illegally assembled in order to attack the deceased Madhavji.
While adverting to the eyewitness, PW3 and PW12 (children of the
deceased), the Court highlighted the third eyewitness (PW11), who was
not related. The trial Court also discussed the slight inconsistency in the
evidence of PW3 and noted that his examination in chief and cross
examination was conducted after long gap of one and a half years. His         C
testimony as an eyewitness was however found to be consistent with
the other two eyewitnesses.
       11. Similarly, the evidence of Shyam Kala Bai (PW12) was also
found to be reliable by the learned trial Court as her presence at the spot
of attack was confirmed by PW3 and PW11 (eyewitnesses) and they               D
corroborated each other, on all material particulars.
       12. On the defence version of Ram Singh (DW1) and Mangi Lal
(DW2), who projected that Madhavji suffered the injury on account of
an accidental fall into the Nullah, the learned Trial Court noted that the
DW2, who was the Chowkidar of the village, never visited the place of         E
occurrence nor he reported about the alleged accident of Madhavji to
the police which, he ought to have done in normal course of his duty as
the village Chowkidar. Likewise the evidence of DW1 was found to be
untrustworthy as he claimed to have accompanied Bhanwar Lal to the
police station but in the related Exhibit there was no mention of DW1         F
accompanying the complainant Bhanwar Lal.
       13. On the possibility of the injuries being caused through a fall,
the evidence of Dr. P.N.Shrivastav (PW2) was discussed vis-à-vis the
testimony of the two DWs. The learned trial Judge noted that
Dr. Shrivastav has merely accepted that injuries could be sustained           G
through a fall from some height. But it was then specifically recorded by
the learned judge that the Doctor never stated that the injuries were the
result of accidental fall. In fact the defence never suggested that the
injuries were not the result of the violent attack by the accused on the
person of Madhavji. Accordingly, it was concluded that the injuries on
                                                                              H
500             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 9 S.C.R.


A     the vital parts were inflicted by the accused in furtherance of their common
      objective.
             14. As the accused pleaded false implication due to old enmity
      with the deceased’s family, this aspect was considered in detail. On
      evaluation of the evidence of the eyewitnesses and the post mortem
B     report, the defence plea of false implication was found to be untrue. It
      was then held that the accused persons had intentionally caused the
      fatal injuries on the deceased Madhavji and accordingly they were
      convicted under Section 302 read with 149 IPC and were sentenced to
      life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default to undergo
      six months further rigorous imprisonment. For the conviction under Section
C     148 IPC, the accused were sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment
      with fine of Rs.3,000/- each. It may again be noted that amongst the six
      charged accused, Lala died during the trial.
             15. The High Court in the appeal, rejected the plea of the appellants
      attempt to discredit the three eyewitnesses by observing that while it
D     may be possible that the eyewitnesses may not have witnessed the actual
      assault but as they immediately reached the field on hearing the shrieks
      of Madhavji, their testimony on the accused being armed with lethal
      weapons and fleeing the spot soon after the assault, cannot be discarded.
      The High Court found consistency in the testimony of the eyewitnesses
E     and noted that the injuries attributed by the eyewitnesses to the accused,
      is corroborated by the medical evidence. It was then concluded that
      there is no infirmity in the judgment of conviction rendered by the learned
      Trial Court and the appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed.
             16. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant- Mr. T. Mahipal
F     submits that the evidence of PW3 and PW12 should be discarded as
      they are the children of the deceased. He then submits that because of
      past enmity, the appellants were falsely implicated. The counsel also
      refers to few of the witnesses not supporting the prosecution version.
            17. On the other hand, Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, the learned Dy.
G     AG for the State of Madhya Pradesh argues that the evidence of the 3
      eyewitnesses conclusively support the prosecution case. She then submits
      that medical evidence and injuries corroborate the oral testimonies.
      According to the learned counsel, bitter relationship of the two groups
      provide a clear motive for the accused to attack the victim.

H
    KARULAL & ORS. v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                              501
                 [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

      18. Let us now consider the law on evidentiary value of a related        A
witness. Commenting on the aspect, Justice Vivian Bose in Dalip Singh
& Ors. Vs. State of Punjab1 rightly opined that;
       “25. We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the
       High Court that the testimony of the two eye-witnesses requires
       corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is             B
       based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the
       fate of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no
       such rule. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely
       related to the deceased we are unable to concur. This is a
       fallacy common to many criminal cases and one which
       another Bench of this Court endeavoured to dispel in                    C
       Rameshwar vs. The State of Rajasthan. We find, however, that
       it unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments of the
       Courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel.”
       26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless
       he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted           D
       and that usually means unless the witness has cause such as
       enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely.
       Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the
       real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person…….”
        19. It may further be noted that Babu Lal(PW11) is an unrelated        E
witness. His testimony substantially supports the evidence of PW3 and
PW12 in all material particulars. In any case, being related to the deceased
does not necessarily mean that they will falsely implicate innocent persons.
In this context, it was appropriately observed by Justice H.R. Khanna in
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Samman Dass2                                        F
       “23………………….It is well known that the close relatives of
       a murdered person are most reluctant to spare the real assailant
       and falsely involve another person in place of the
       assailant……………….”
       20. Again in a later decision of this Court in Khurshid Ahmed vs.       G
State of Jammu and Kashmir3 one of us, Justice N.V. Ramana on the
issue of evidence of a related witness was justified in declaring that:
1
  AIR 1953 SC 364
2
  (1972) 3 SCC 201
3
  (2018) 7 SCC 429                                                             H
502               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 9 S.C.R.


A              “31. There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated
               as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to be shown
               when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had
               reason to shield actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused
               (See Harbans Kaur Vs. State of Haryana)”
B            The above precedents make it amply clear that the testimony of
      the related witness, if found to be truthful, can be the basis of conviction
      and we have every reason to believe that PW3 and PW12 were
      immediately present at the spot and identified the accused with various
      deadly weapons in their hands.
C           21. The learned counsel for the appellant next refers to the defence
      version of the injuries being caused through a fall on the Nullah and the
      old enmity being the cause for implicating the accused. On this issue, we
      may benefit by adverting to the observation of Justice Faizan Uddin in
      Sushil & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.4 where the learned Judge so correctly
      observed:
D
               “8…………….It goes without saying that enmity is a double-
               edged weapon which cuts both ways. It may constitute a motive
               for the commission of the crime and at the same time it may also
               provide a motive for false implication. In the present case there is
               evidence to establish motive and when the prosecution adduced
E              positive evidence showing the direct involvement of the accused
               in the crime, motive assumes importance. The evidence of
               interested witnesses and those who are related to the deceased
               cannot be thrown out simply for that reason. But if after applying
               the rule of caution their evidence is found to be reliable and
F              corroborated by independent evidence there is no reason to discard
               their evidence but it has to be accepted as reliable………….”
             22. If the witnesses are otherwise trustworthy, past enmity by
      itself will not discredit any testimony. In fact the history of bad blood
      gives a clear motive for the crime. Therefore this aspect does not in our
G     assessment, aid the defence in the present matter.
            23. The appellant’s counsel also submitted that few of the
      witnesses had not supported the prosecution case and were declared to
      be hostile. But there are enough material evidence and trustworthy
      testimonies which clearly support the case against the accused and the
      4
H         (1995) Suppl 1 SCC 363
  KARULAL & ORS. v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                                503
               [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

prosecution need not fail on this count alone. Some witness may not            A
support the prosecution story for their own reasons and in such situation,
it is necessary for the Court to determine whether the other available
evidence comprehensively proves the charge. In this case, it is seen that
the prosecution version is cogent and supported by three eyewitnesses
who have given a consistent account of the incident. Their testimonies
                                                                               B
are corroborated by the medical evidence. The learned Trial Judge had
elaborately discussed the evidence of both sides and came to a logical
conclusion which inspires confidence. We are therefore of the view that
the hostile witnesses will not affect the conviction of the appellants.
        24. Proceeding on the above basis and on careful examination of
the manner in which the learned Trial Judge analysed the evidence and          C
rendered his verdict, the conviction of the appellants according to our
assessment, was rightly ordered and correctly upheld by the High Court.
It is declared accordingly.
       25. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.
                                                                               D

Kalpana K. Tripathy                                        Appeal dismissed.




                                                                               E




                                                                               F




                                                                               G




                                                                               H