KURIA & ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

                          [2012] 10 S.C.R. 570


A                            KURIA & ANR.
                                   v.
                      STATE OF RAJASTHAN
                {Criminal Appeal No. 2488 of 2009)
                      SEPTEMBER 13, 2012
B
        [SWATANTER KUMAR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED
                IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.]

        Penal Code, 1860:
c
        ss. 302 and 364 rlw s. 34 - Prosecution under - 15
  accused causing death of one person - 4 eye-witnesses -
  Animosity between parties - Conviction of 3 and acquittal of
  rest of the accused by trial court - Appeal of one accused
0 abated due to his death - High Court upholding the conviction
  of the two accused - On appeal, held: The eye-accounts are
  fully supported by statement of Investigating Officer, inquest
  report, post mortem report and the recoveries - There was
  also motive for the accused to kill the deceased - Prosecution
E has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt -
  In view of the evidence, accused rightly convicted.
       s. 34 - Applicability - Held: The provision is applicable
  in cases where it is not possible to attribute a specific role to
  a particular accused - The basic essentials for applying it are
F : (1) Criminal act committed by several persons (2) The act
  is done in furtherance of common intention.
        s. 34 - Nature of - Held: The provision is a rule of
    evidence and does not create a substantive offence.
G       Criminal Trial:
      Improved and contradictory statements - Evidentiary
  value - Held: The discrepancies or improvements which do
  not materially affect the case of the prosecution and are
H                             570
      KURIA & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                  571


insignificant, cannot be made the basis for doubting the          A
prosecution case.

    Witnesses:

     Sole-eye witness - Evidentiary value - Held: The court
                                                                  8
can act on the testimony of sole eye-witness provided he is
wholly reliable and can base conviction relying on such
witness.

     Related witness - Evidentiary value - Held: If testimony
of an eye-witness found truthful, it cannot be discarded merely   C
on the ground that the witness was relative of the deceased.

    Words and Phrases:

     Expression 'Sterling worth' in the context of Criminal
Jurisprudence - Meaning of.                                       D

     The two appellants-accused alongwlth 13 other
accused were prosecuted ulss. 302 and 364 r/w s. 34 IPC
for having caused death of one person. According to
prosecution, there were 4 eye-witnesses (PWs 1, 3, 5 and          E
15) to the incident. One of the eye-witnesses PW 3 was
the son of the deceased and was the informant. There
was rivalry between the accused party and the
complainant party. During trial, two of the eye-witnesses
viz. Pws 1 and 5 turned hostile. Trial court acquitted all        F
the accused except three accused, Including the two
appellants-accused. The convicted accused filed appeal
before High Court. During pendency of the appeal, one
of the convicted accused died and the appeal abated
against him. High Court confirmed the conviction of the           G
appellants-accused.
    In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that
there Is contradiction between the ocular and medical
evidence; that there are contradictions and
                                                                  H
    572      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A improvements in the statements of the witnesses; that
  presence of PWs 3, 4, 7 and 15, at the scene of
  occurrence, was doubtful hence their evidence not
  reliable; that no specific role or use of weapon in the
  attack was seen by any of the witnesses; that the
B statements of hostile witness or unreliable witnesses
  cannot be used for the purpose of corroboration of other
  witnesses; and that s. 34 IPC is not attracted in the
  present case and therefore the conviction was not
  justified.
c         Dismissing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
  the cumulative effect of the prosecution evidence is that
  the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond
D reasonable doubt. [Para 29] [601-B]
       2. It is not correct to say that there is conflict between
  the medical evidence and the ocular evidence in relation
  to the manner in which injuries were inflicted and the
E consequences thereof. Except where it is totally
  irreconcilable with the medical evidence, oral evidence
  has primacy. In the present case, a large number of
  persons had attacked one person. These witnesses
  cannot be expected to explain the role in the inflicting of
F injuries by each one of them individually and the weapons
  used. Such conduct would be opposed to the normal
  conduct of a human being. The fear for his own life and
  anxiety to save the victim would be so high and
  bothersome to the witness that it will not only be unfair
  but also unfortunate to expect such a witness to speak
G with precision with regard to injuries inflicted on the body
  of the deceased and the role attributable to each of the
  accused individually. In the present case, the result of the
  blunt Injuries Is evident from the report of the post
  mortem. The post mortem report, the Inquest report, the
H statements of PW2, PW3, PW4, PW7 and PW15 are in line
     KURIA & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN              573


with each other and there is no noticeable conflict         A
between them. The injuries on the body of the deceased
were so severe that they alone could be the cause of
death and the statement of PW6 (doctor) in relation to
cause of death is definite and certain. [Paras 8, 13 and
16] [585-B; 590-E; 592-G-H; 593-A-D]                        B

    Abdul Sayeed v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2010)
10 SCC 259: 2010 (13) SCR311; Baso Prasad and Ors. v.
State of Bihar 2006 (13) SCC 65: 2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 431;
Krishnan v. State (2003) 7 SCC 56: 2003 (1) Suppl.          C
SCR 771 - relied on.

     3.1. Improvements or variations of the statements of
the witnesses should be of such nature that it would
create a definite doubt in the mind of the court that the
witnesses are trying to state something which is not true D
and which is not duly corroborated by the statements of
the other witnesses. That is not the situation in the
present case. The improvements do not create any legal
impediment in accepting the statements of PW3, PW4,
PW7 and PW15 made under oath. The discrepancies or E
improvements which do not materially affect the case of
the prosecution and are insignificant cannot be made the
basis for doubting the case of the prosecution. The
courts may not concentrate too much on such
discrepancies or improvements. The purpose is to F
primarily and clearly sift the chaff from the grain and find
out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. Where
It does not affect the core of the prosecution case, such
discrepancy should not be attached undue significance.
The normal course of human conduct would be that while G
narrating a particular Incident, there may occur minor
discrepancies. Such discrepancies may even in law
render credential to the depositions. The improvements
or variations must essentially relate to the material
particulars of the prosecution case. The alleged H
    574    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012) 10 S.C.R.

A improvements and variations must be shown with
  respect to material particulars of the case and the
  occurrence. Every such improvement, not directly related
  to the occurrence, is not a ground to doubt the testimony
  of a witness. The credibility of a definite circumstance of
B the prosecution case cannot be weakened with reference
  to such minor or insignificant Improvements. [Para 21]
  [596-H; 597-A]

       Kathi Bharat Vajsur and Anr. v. State of Gujarat (2012)
  5 SCC 724; Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and Anr. v.
C State of Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 457:2000 (3) Suppl.
   SCR 104; D.P. Chadha v. Triyugi Narain Mishra and Ors.
  (2001) 2 SCC 205: 2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 408; Sukhchain
  Singh v. State of Haryana ~Ors. (2002) 5 SCC 100: 2002
  (3) SCR 408 - relied on:
D
       3.2. Every improvement or variation cannot be
  treated as an attempt to falsely implicate the accused by
  the witness. The approach of the court has to be
  reasonable and practicable. [Para 23] [597-G]
E
         Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2010) 12 SCC
    350: 2010 (7) SCR 1119; Shiv/al and Anr. v. State of
    Chhattisgarh (2011) 9 SCC561: 2011 (11) SCR 429 -
    relied on.

F      3.3. The presence of PW15 cannot be doubted at the
  site in question. He was going from the bus stand to his
  house and had stopped on the way after seeing the
  Incident This behavior of PW15 Is very normal behavior
  and does not call for the raising of any unnecessary
G doubts. As far as absence of the name of PW15 from the
  FIR is concerned, it Is clear that PW3 was following his
  father from behind and the moment the accused persons,
  who were large in number, started assaulting his father
  with weapons that they were carrying, for fear of his own
H
      KURIA & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN               575


life and to bring people to save his father, he ran from the   A
site. Obviously, PW15 appeared at the scene at that time
and PW3 had not seen him at that juncture. Afterwards,
when he came to the site along with other witnesses, i.e.,
PW2, PW4 and PW7, he saw his father's body being
thrown near the hand pump in front of the house of the         8
accused. The death of his father would have perturbed
him so much that his priorities would be only to take his
father to the hospital and inform the police, rather than
viewing as to who was there around him besides the
persons who had come with him. [Para 19] [594-C-F]             c
     3.4. The variations or insignificant improvements in
the statements of PW3 and PW7 are of such nature that
they cannot make the statement of these witnesses
unbelievable and unreliable. The witnesses have stated
that they had informed the police of what they stated          D
under oath before the court, but why it was not so
recorded in their statements under Section 161 recorded
by the Investigating Officer would be a reason best
known to the Investigating Officer. It is only when
exaggeration fundamentally changes the nature of the           E
case, the court has to consider whether the witness was
stating truth or not. [Paras 20 and 22] [595-E]

   Sunil Kumar v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2003) 11
SCC 367: 2003(4) Suppl. SCR 767 - relied on.                   F
     3.5. The variations in the statement of witness cannot
be termed as contradictions between the statements of
the witnesses. They are explainable variations which are
likely to occur in the normal course and do not, in any G
way, adversely affect the case of the prosecution. Thus,
there are no material contradictions in the statement of
the witnesses or the documents, nor can the presence
of PW15 be doubted at the place of occurrence. [Para 20]
[595-E]
                                                            H
    576    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012] 10 S.C.R.

A      3.6. 'Sterling worth' is only an expression that is used
  for judging the worth of the statement of a witness. The
  use of such an expression in the context of criminal
  jurisprudence would mean a witness worthy of credence,
  one who is reliable and truthful. This has to be gathered
B from the entire statement of the witnesses and the
  demeanour of the witnesses, if any, noticed by the court.
  Linguistically, 'sterling worth' means 'thoroughly
  excellent' or 'of great value'. This term, in the context of
  criminal jurisprudence cannot be of any rigid meaning. It ·
c must be understood as a generic term. In the instant
  case, the statements of the witnesses are reliable,
  trustworthy and deserve credence by the Court. They do
  not seem to be based on any falsehood. [Para 18] [593-
  H; 594-A·B]
D      4.1. The presence of PW3, PW4, PW7 and PW15 at
  the place of occurrence is neither unnatural nor
  improbable. In fact, their statements are trustworthy and
  their presence at the place of occurrence at different
  timings is plausible and fully fits into the case of the
E prosecution. The version given by these witnesses is
  fully corroborated by documentary and medical evidence.
  The eye account given by these witnesses fully finds
  support from the statement of the Investigating Officer,
  the inquest report, post-mortem report as well as the
F recoveries effected from the place of occurrence
  including the blood- stained earth and wood from the
  door of the house of the accused. As a general rule, the
  court can and may act on the testimony of a single eye-
  witness provided he is wholly reliable and base the
G conviction on the testimony of such sole eye-witness.
  There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on
  the sole testimony of a single witness. [Para 24) [597-H;
  598-A-B-C, D-E, G-H]
      4.2. The testimony of an eye-witness, if found truthful,
H cannot be discarded merely because the eye-witness was
     KURIA & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN              577

a relative of the deceased. Where the witness is wholly A
unreliable, the court may discard the statement of such
witness, but where the witness is wholly reliable or
neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable (if his
statement is fully corroborated and supported by other
ocular and documentary evidence), the court may base B
Its judgment on the statement of such witness. Of course,
In the latter category of witnesses, the court has to be
more cautious and see if the statement of the witness Is
corroborated. [Para 25] [599-A-C]

     Sunil Kumar v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2003) 11 C
SCC 367: 2003(4) Suppl. SCR 767; Brathi alias Sukhdev
Singh v. State of Punjab(1991) 1 SCC 519: 1990 (2) Suppl.
SCR 503; Alagupandi @ A/agupandian v. State of Tamil
Nadu 2012 (5) SCALE 595 - relied on.
                                                            D
     4.3. All the witnesses were present at the place of
occurrence and their statements are reliable. In the
alternative, if the court relies upon the statement of PW15
(according to the accused, the sole eye-witness) whose
statement, according to the accused, is unreliable, the E
conviction can be based on the statement of PW15, as
the statement of that witness is trustworthy, reliable and
is completely corroborated by other ocular and
documentary evidence. [Para 26] [599-D-E]
     5. The accused/appellants cannot draw any F
advantage from PW1 and PW5 being declared hostile.
V'~ilatever doubt these witnesses could cause to the case
of the prosecution stands fully supplied and erased by
the statement of other eye-witnesses and the other
medical and expert evidence. [Para 27) [600-B-C]          G
    6. Another very material piece of evidence which
directly links the accused to the offence is that when the
blood-stained clothes of the deceased and other articles
were recovered, sealed and sent for serological H
    578     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 10 S.C.R.

A   examination to the FSL and the Chemical Analyst had
    submitted its report Exhibit P/43 after such serological
    examination, human blood of blood group '0', which was
    also the blood group of the deceased, was found on all
    the three articles. [Para 27] [600-C-D]
B
       7. According to PW-1 there was animosity between
  the parties regarding agricultural land. There were cases
  pending in the court. Though he denied the suggestion
  that they had murdered the deceased due to this reason,
  but he does provide a motive for the accused persons
C to commit the offence. In all likelihood, that was the cause
  for murdering the deceased. [Para 28] [600-G]

      8. In face of the unimpeachable evidence, ocular and
  documentary, the question of corroboration by unreliable
D evidence does not arise in the present case. [Para 28]
  [600-G-H]

        State of Punjab v. Parveen Kumar (2005) 9 SCC 769 -
    held inapplicable.
E       9.1. It is not correct to say that it was not a case of
  pre-meditated murder, and the provisions of Section 34
  IPC are not attracted in the present case. It has come in
  evidence that all the accused persons had come with
  weapons, assaulted the deceased and taken him inside
F the house where he was again assaulted by the accused
  persons and after sometime, his body was dragged by
  the accused persons, including the appellant and thrown
  near the hand pump. There was motive for the accused
  persons to kill the deceased, they had come out with
G common intention and object to assault and kill the
  deceased in which they succeeded. In the cases where
  it is not possible to attribute a specific role to a particular
  accused, like the present case, recourse to this provision
  is appropriately made by the prosecution. [Paras 30 and
H 31] [601-B-E]
      KURIA & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                579

      9.2 . The soul of Section 34, IPC is the joint liability A
in doing a criminal act The section is a rule of evidence
and does not create a substantive offence. The distinctive
feature of the section is the element of participation in
action. The liability of one person for an offence
committed by the other in the course of criminal act B
perpetrates to all other persons, under Section 34 IPC, if
such criminal act is done in furtherance of the common
intention of the person who joins in committing the crime.
The Court has to examine the prosecution evidence with
regard to application of Section 34 cumulatively and if the c
ingredients are satisfied, the consequences must follow.
It is difficult to state any hard and fast rule which can be
applied universally to all cases. It will always depend on
the facts and circumstances of the given case whether
the person Involved in the commission of the crime with
                                                               0
a common intention can be held guilty of the main
 offence committed by them together. The provisions of
 Section 34 IPC come to the aid of law while dealing with
the cases of criminal act and common intention. Its basic
essentials are : that the criminal act is committed by E
 several persons, such act is done in furtherance of
 common intention of all and each of such persons Is
 liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done
 by him alone. [Para 32] [601-0-H; 602-A-D]
    Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal 2012 (6) CALE       F
381; Hemchand Jhas alias Hemchandra Jha v. State of Bihar
(2008) 11 SCC 303: 2008 (9) SCR 1171; Nand Kishore v.
State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 12 SCC 120: 2011 (7)
 SCR 1152 - relied on.
                                                              G
    9.3. All the accused had committed criminal acts
punishable under the provisions of the IPC. They had
done so with common intention, as is evident from the
statement of the witnesses and the documents on
record. And lastly, each one of them, whether he actually     H
    580       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A   made any assault on the body of the deceased or not,
    dragged him and threw his body in the gully or not, shall
    all be deemed to have committed the said offences with
    the aid of Section 34 IPC. [Para 33] [602-F-G]

                         Case Law Reference:
B
      2010 (13) SCR 311           Relied on         Para 13
      2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 431 Relied on             Para 14
      2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 771 Relied on             Para 15
c     (2012) 5 sec 724           Relied on          Para 21
      2000 (3) Suppl. SCR 104 Relied on             Para 21
      2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 408 Relied on             Para 21
D     2002 (3) SCR 408           Relied on          Para 21
      2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 767 Relied on             Para 22
      2010 (7) SCR 1119          Relied on          Para 23

E     2011 (11) SCR 429          Relied on          Para 23
      2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 767 Relied on             Para 25
      1990 (2) Suppl. SCR 503 Relied on             Para 25
      2012 (5) SCALE 595         Relied on          Para 25
F
      (2005) 9 sec 769           held inapplicable Para 28
      2012 (6) SCALE 381         Relied on         Para 32
      2008 (9) SCR 1171          Relied on         Para 32
G
      2011 (7) SCR 1152          Relied on         Para 32
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 2488 of 2009.

H         From the Judgment & Order dated 20.5.2008 of the High
      KURIA & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                  581


Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.        A
1130 of 2003.

   Bhagwati Prasad, H.D. Thanvi, Pushpendra Singh, Sarad
Kumar Singhania for the Appellants.

     P.P. Malhotra, ASG, Wasim A Qadri, Kiran, B.K. Prasad,      B
B.V. Balramdas, Suryanarayana Singh, Pragati Neekhra for the
Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
     SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. At the outset, we may notice C
that 15 accused persons had faced trial for offences under
Sections 302 and 364 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") before the Court of the Additional
Sessions Judge, Banswara (Rajasthan). Vide its judgment
dated 5th September, 2003, learned Trial Court acquitted all D
the accused persons except Laleng son of Bajeng, Laleng son
of Dalji and Kuriya son of Laleng. These three accused were
convicted for both these offences and were directed to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.4,000/- each and
in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four E
months under Section 302/34 IPC and to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs.1000/- each and
in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one
month under Section 364/34 IPC.
     2. All the three acc·used persons preferred separate F
appeals before the High Court, impugning the judgment of the
Trial Court. Unfortunately, during the pendency of the appeal
before the High Court, Laleng son of Bajeng died. Vide its
judgment dated 25th May, 2008, the Division Bench of the High
Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur confirmed the judgment of G
conviction and order of sentence against the remaining two
accused, i.e., Kuria son of Laleng and Laleng son of Dalji.
    3. Aggrieved from the judgment of the High Court, both the
accused have filed the present appeal. The State did not         H
    582      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 10 S.C.R.

A challenge the acquittal of the 12 accused persons by the Trial
  Court before the High Court. Thus, in the present appeal, we
  are only concerned with the appeal of the aforementioned two
  accused.
       4. Now, we may notice the case of the prosecution in brief.
B Laleng, son of Mogji Patidar went to the Police Station, Garhi
  on 28th January, 2001 and lodged a written report (Exhibit P3)
  to the effect that his father had gone to some other place as a
  guest. At about 5.30 in the evening, he was returning to his
  house. The informant (who was also going in the same
C direction), was at some distance behind him. Along with him
  were two persons, namely, Dhulji and Bapulal. When his father
  reached near the house of Yatendra, son of Shivaji and was
  standing on the road, Laleng and Dalji started assaulting his
  father and on their hands, took him inside their house.
D According to Laleng, who was examined as PW3, Laleng son
  of Dalji, the accused, was carrying an axe in his hand. The other
  accused, Laleng s/o Wajeng, was carrying a 'kash' and Kuriya
  was carrying a 'lath' in his hands and others were also carrying
  'laths'. PW3 and the others with him could not interfere
E because of the large number of accused and, due to fear, they
  ran to the village to get help. Once this fact was disclosed, Dhulji
  son of Gotam, Bajeng son of Pemji and Dalji son of Gotam had
  also arrived at the place of incident. In their presence, Laleng
  and his son Kuria, Laleng son of Dalji, Dhulji son of Bajeng,
F Kuber son of Jasu and Bhemji son of Nathu were beating his
  father and while assaulting him, dragged and threw him on the
  road in front of the house of Laleng, the accused. When the
  informant and the others came near his father, they saw that
  he had expired. The body of the deceased was lying at the
G spot. According to this witness, there was rivalry between these
  persons and the deceased. PW3, thus, had seen the incident.
  The FIR was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302
  of the IPC vide Exhibit P/4. The Investigating Officer
  commenced his investigation, went to the place of occurrence,
H prepared the site plan (Exhibit P/5) and recorded statement of
      KURIA & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                  583
             [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

the witnesses vide panchnama (Exhibit P/2). The body of the A
deceased was taken into custody. The clothes worn by the
deceased were also taken into possession vide Exhibit P/7.
The body of the deceased was subjected to post mortem which
was prepared by Dr. S.K. Bhatnagar, PW6 being Exhibit P/11.
From the house of the accused Laleng, blood stained Dahli B
(piece of wood of the door of the house) was taken into
possession vide Exhibit P/9. In furtherance to the statement of
the accused, the recoveries of iron kash, axe and laths were
made and the same were taken into possession vide Exhibits
P/13 to P/18. The recovered articles were sent to the Forensic    c
Science Laboratory, Udaipur (FSL) vide Exhibit P/30 for which
permission was granted by the Superintendent of Police vide
Exhibit P/29 [Acknowledgment receipt (Exhibit P/31)]. The
report of the FSL was received and accepted as Exhibit P/43.
Based upon the oral statements and the documentary evidence 0
collected during the course of the trial and the statements
recorded during investigation, the Investigating Officer (PW16)
completed his investigation and submitted cha/an under
Section 173(3) of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (for
short, the Cr.P.C.) to the court of competent jurisdiction.
                                                                 E
     5. As already noticed, the accused-appellants faced trial
 before the Trial Court and were convicted. Their conviction and
order of sentence was confirmed by the High Court.
     6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had          F
examined as many as 17 witnesses. PW1, PW3, PW5 and
PW15 were projected by the prosecution as eye-witnesses.
However, during the course of their examination, PW1 and PW5
were declared hostile as they did not support the case of the
prosecution and the case of the prosecution primarily hinges
upon the statements of PW3 and PW15 coupled with the post         G
mortem report, the report of the FSL, statement of PW6 and
the attendant circumstances.
    7. While impugning the concurrent judgments before this
Court, the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants are :   H
    584         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A         (1)    PW1 is not a reliable eye-witness, inasmuch as
                 from his statement and the attendant
                 circumstances, it is clear that he has not seen the
                 occurrence.
          (2)    Presence of PW15 at the place of occurrence is
B
                 doubtful inasmuch as PW3 in his report to the
                 Police, Exhibit P/3 did not name him. Thus, the
                 presence of PW15 is very doubtful.
          (3)    No specific role or use of a particular weapon in
c                causing injuries by the respective accused has
                 been seen by PW3 or any other witness.
          (4)    There is clear contradiction between the ocular and
                 medical evidence inasmuch as, according to PW3
                 and PW15, axe and kash were used for inflicting
D                injuries upon the deceased, while, according to the
                 post mortem report (Exhibit P/11 ), all the injuries
                 were caused with blunt weapons and there was no
                 bleeding injury. Furthermore, the question of
                 collecting the blood from the dahli of the accused
E                did not arise as the deceased was not bleeding as
                 per the version given by the eye-witnesses.
                 Consequently, there are serious holes in the case
                 of the prosecution.
          (5)    The statement of hostile witnesses or unreliable
F                witnesses cannot be used for the purposes of
                 corroboration of other witnesses. A statement which
                 is otherwise untrustworthy cannot be corroborated
                 by another piece of unreliable evidence. Deliberate
                 and unbelievable improvements have been made
G                in the statements of the witnesses between their
                 recording of statement under Section 161 of the
                 Cr.P.C. and statements in the Court. Statements of
                 the witnesses are not sterling worthy and the entire
                 case of the prosecution is based upon suspicion.
H
      KURIA & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                     585
             [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
            Lastly, the provisions of Section 34 IPC are not A
            attracted in the present case, as it was not a case
            of common intention and object.
     8. First of all, we may deal with the argument advanced
on behalf of the appellant that there is clear conflict between
the medical evidence and the ocular evidence in relation to the B
manner in which injuries were inflicted and the consequences
thereof. Even the cause of death is not evident from the post
mortem report and once the cause of death is not proved, the
accused would be entitled to an order of acquittal.
                                                                     c
     9. In order to examine the merit of this contention, it is
necessary for us to refer to the post mortem report at the very
threshold. The post mortem report had been exhibited as
Exhibit P/11 and the relevant part thereof reads as under :
      "1.   Bruse 2 x 2 cm above RT eye                              D
      2.    Bruse 3 x 2 cm on Pissa Rt ear
      3.    Bruse 9x3 cm near Rt side Nose
      4.    Bruse 3x2 cm Rt cheek near ear
                                                                     E
      5.    Bruse 25x20 cm in front of chest and extending to
            the base of left side of Abdomen
      6.    Brine 7x2 cm
      7.    Bruse 5x4 cm Rt lower back                               F
      8.    Bruse 7x4 cm Rt upper arm
      9.    Bruse 4x2 cm Left Elbow
      10.   Bruse 7x2 cm back of left hand
                                                                     G
      11.   Barne Entire back from lateral bone both side
            superior border should interior border till lower left
            of last lib
      12.   Brune 4 x 4 cm Rt leg
                                                                     H
    586         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 10 S.C.R.

A          13.    Burn 5x5 cm left leg
           14.    Burne 5x5 cm left thigh
           15.    Burne 4x4 cm left thigh
                 All are simple except 5&11 only two & all are
B                caused by blunt object & within 24 hrs duration.
                 dissection at the neck shows Oedema &
                 haemorahage at the base of neck of muscles & is
                 underlying soft tissue and at the base & antemortem
c                of both enclo of hyoid bones.
                  II. CRANIUM AND SPINAL CORD
          Note The Spinal need not be examined unless any
          indication on disease or injury exist.
D         Healthy
                 Ill THORAX
           1.     Walls, Rab and Cartines Healthy
           2.     Pleaurae Healthy- Pleaural cavity both full of blood
E
           3.     Tharynx and Trachea Healthy except congestion at
                  Trachsea & barynx
          4.      Right Lung Voluminous cut section shows blood
                  stained
F
           5.    Left Lung Voluminous cut section show blood
                 stained froth
           6.     Periartium health There are #s of 3rd to vth ribts
           7.    Heath Rt side Posteriorly precing in between tissue
G
                 causing
           8.    Large vessel. Lacurateen of lung (RT) similarly
                 there is # of V to Viithy ribs posters only causing
                 piefcyr & Lacuratren of in between tissue & Lungs
H                on left side. However nonstravenatic segments of
      KURIA & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                      587
             [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

            both lungs are voluminous as disabible above             A
            Pericardium & large vessels & Heart is Healthy all
            four chambers of heart are empty.
            In abdomen all organs are healthy stomach &
            intestine formally both contains semidigistel food &
            Large intestine contains faecial matri                   B
            10. Bladder Empty & Healthy
            11. Organs and interal Healthy
            V. MUSCLES BONES AND JOINT                               c
            Healthy
            REMARKS AND MEDICAL OFFICER
     1.     All injuries are within 24 hrs & antemortem in nature.
                                                                     D
     2.     Examinee expired 6-24 hrs of duration
     3.     Examinee expired due to injury both Lungs causing
            haemothorax associated pressue on neck causing
            asphyxia."
     Sd/-        A            B                c               D     E

                                           (Dr. R. Vpaothyarya)"
    The above report has been copied from the original Post
    Mortem report and no corrections have been made
    thereto.                                                         F
     10. The doctor was examined as PW6. According to the
doctor, the deceased was a healthy person and had suffered
the abovestated 15 injuries. When he dissected the body of the
deceased, he found that both pleural cavities were full of blood G
and the trachea and lungs were congested. At the back, ribs
three to five were fractured and they had perforated the lungs.
Similarly, on the left side as well ribs from five to seven had
been. fractured and had perforated the lungs even on that side.
The cause of death, according to PW6, was as a result of H
    588       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 10 S.C.R.

A injuries to both the lungs and the pleural cavity being full of blood
  which caused pressure on the neck, causing the deceased to
  suffocate. PW6 was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination
  but nothing material has been found. In his cross examination,
  he stated that he had prepared Exhibit P/11 immediately after
B examining the body of the deceased.
          11. PW3, the son of the deceased, stated that the accused
    persons were beating his father. Fearing his own death, he ran
    to the village for help and when he along with Bajeng, Dhuiji and
    Dalji reached back, they saw that the accused persons threw
C   the body of his late father on the road and by the time they got
    there, his father had already died. He admitted his signatures
    on the report, Exhibit P/3 and also stated that the Police had
    prepared the site plan. Clothes of the deceased were taken in
    his presence and he had signed the memo (Ex. P/7). In his
D   cross-examination, he stated that despite his screaming,
    nobody came to help. PW4 corroborated the statement of PW3
    and stated that he had come screaming that the accused
    people were beating his father. All of them ran towards the
    house of the accused along with other named persons and saw
E   that the accused persons had thrown the body of the deceased
    on the road. According to this witness, there were 15-16
    injuries on the body of the deceased. There was an injury on
    the neck. According to him, the neck had been twisted (marod)
    whereupon the deceased died. PW7 is the other witness who
F   has stated that they went to the place of occurrence running and
    when they reached, they saw that body of the deceased was
    being dragged by the accused persons and, according to him,
    there was injury on the neck of the deceased and neck had been
    broken and his whole body had injuries. PW2 is the other
G   witness who has specifically stated that body of the deceased
    was lying in front of the house of Laleng, the accused, when he
    went to the place of occurrence. This witness clearly stated that
    when he saw the body of the deceased, he noticed that blood
    was oozing from his body. In answer to a question in his cross-
H   examination, he stated that there were disputes between
      KURIA & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                 589
             [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

Khemji and Kachru relating to agricultural land. The inquest A
report of the body of the deceased is also a relevant document
in this regard. The Investigating Officer noticed as many as 15
injuries on the body of the deceased which completely matched
with the post mortem report. He also noticed that on the wrist
of the hand and finger (left), there was blood. There were a B
number of injuries on the right foot of the deceased. There was
fresh injury seen on the right foot. The deceased was wearing
white tericotjhabba which was blood stained. There is complete
consistency between the ocular and medical evidence. The
mere fact that no injuries on the body of the deceased were    c
found which could have been caused by an axe or kash (which
are stated to be sharp aged weapons), would not ex facie belie
the ocular and medical evidence. There were a large number
persons (15) who were involved in the commission of the crime.
Except two, all were carrying laths and all the injuries on the
                                                                0
body of the deceased were caused by a blunt weapon. Even
an axe or kash could be used from the other side, i.e., not the
sharp edge to cause such injuries. Even if they were not used,
it would not, in any way, cause a dent in the case of the
prosecution. All the witnesses have truthfully spoken about the E
occurrence. Except PW3, nobody could have actually seen the
assault on the deceased by the accused persons. It will be
unfair to expect a young boy, whose father is being beaten to
death, to watch with precision as to which of the accused was
causing which injury and by what weapon. His entire interest
would be to somehow save his father. There was so much of F
fear in his mind that he could not gather the courage of
preventing the accused persons from assaulting his father as
he thought that accused persons would kill him as well. This
conduct of PW3 cannot be said to be abnormal in the facts and
circumstances of the present case. He immediately got other G
persons to help.
    12. PW15 stated that at about 5.30 p.m., he was going
from the bus stand towards his house, when he heard the
screams of the deceased. When he went there, the accused       H
    590      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 10 S.C.R.

A persons were beating the deceased and while continuing to
  beat him, took the deceased into their house. He also stated
  that they had brought the body of the deceased outside and
  threw it near the hand pump in front of their house and when
  he saw the deceased he was dead and his neck was turned
8 in one direction. He also stated that there was dispute about
  the agricultural land between the deceased and the accused
  persons. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he was
  alone at the place of occurrence when the deceased was being
  beaten by the accused persons. He also stated that he had
C screamed and raised an alarm but nobody came forward to
  help after which the son of the deceased along with others had
  come there. In response to a question in his cross-examination,
  he stated another fact that four accused persons had brought
  the dead body of the deceased outside their house while
  dragging it. However, it had not been recorded and the Police
0 has not noticed the same. He reiterated that body of the
  deceased was dragged and thrown in front of the hand pump.
       13. This Court has consistently taken the view that except
  where it is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, oral
E evidence has primacy. In the case of Abdul Sayeed v. The
  State of Madhya Pradesh [(2010) 10 SCC 259], this Court held
  as under:
          "38. In State of U.P. v. Hari Chand, (2009) 13 SCC 542,
          this Court reiterated the aforementioned position of law
F         and stated that: (SCC p. 545, para 13)
                 ' ... In any event unless the oral evidence is totally
                 irreconcilable with the medical evidence, it has
                 primacy.'
G         39. Thus, the position of law in cases where there is a
          contradiction between medical evidence and ocular
          evidence can be crystallised to the effect that though the
          ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value
          vis-a-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence
H         makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a
      KURIA & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                   591
             [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
    relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence. A
    However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it
    completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence
    being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved.
    40. In the instant case as referred to hereinabove, a very
    large number of assailants attacked one person,, thus the 8
    witnesses cannot be able to state as how many injuries
    and in what manner the same had been caused by the
    accused. In such a fact-situation, discrepancy in medical
    evidence and ocular evidence is bound to occur. However,
    it cannot tilt the balance in favour of the appellal"'.ts." C
    14. Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of
Baso Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar [2006 (13) SCC 65]
wherein this Court held as under :
    "27. In some cases, medical evidence may corr9borate D
    the prosecution witnesses; in some it may not. Tha court,
    however, cannot apply any universal rule whether ocular
    evidence would be relied upon or the medical evidence ,
    as the same will depend upon the facts and circumstances
    of each case.                                             E
    28. No hard and fast rule can be laid down therefore. It is
    axiomatic, however, that when some discrepancies are
    found in the ocular evidence vis-a-vis medical evidence,
    the defence should seek for an explanation from the doctor.
    He should be confronted with the charge that he has           F
    committed a mistake. Instances are not unknown where the
    doctor has rectified the mistake committed by him while
    writing the post-mortem report."
     15. In the case of Krishnan v. State [(2003) 7 SCC 56],      G
this Court held as under:
    "18. The evidence of Dr. Muthuswami (PW 7) and Dr
    Abbas Ali {PW 8) do not run in any way contrary to ocular
    evidence. In any event, the ocular evidence being cogent,
                                                                  H
    592       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012) 10 S.C.R.


A         credible and trustworthy, minor variance, if any with the
          medical evidence is not of any consequence.
          20. Coming to the plea that the medical evidence is at
          variance with ocular evidence, it has to be noted that it
          would be erroneous to accord undue primacy to the
B         hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the
          eyewitness account which had to be tested independently
          and not treated as the "variable", keeping the medical
          evidence as constant.

c         21. It is trite that where the eyewitnesses' account is found
          credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to
          alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive.
          Witnesses, as Bentham said, are the eyes and years of
          justice. Hence, the importance and primacy of the quality
          of trial process. Eyewitnesses' account would require a
D
          careful independent assessment and evaluation for its
          credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making
          any other eviden~. including medical evidence, as the
          sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence
          must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent
E         probability of the story; consistency with the account of
          other witnesses held to be credit worthy; consistency with
          undisputed facts, the "credit" of the witnesses; their
          performance in the witness box; their power of observation
          etc. Then, the probative value of such evidence becomes
F         eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative
          evaluation."
       16. In light of the above principles, we may revert to the
  evidence in the present case. A large number of persons had
G attacked one person. These witnesses cannot be expected to
  explain the role in the inflicting of injuries by each one of them
  individually and the weapons used. Such conduct would be
  opposed to the normal conduct of a human being. The fear for
  his own life and anxiety to save the victim would be so high and
H bothersome to the witness that it will not only be unfair but also
       KURIA & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                       593
              [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
unfortunate to expect such a witness to speak with precision            A
with regard to injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased and
the role attributable to each of the accused individually. In the
present case, the result of the blunt injuries is evident from the
report of the post mortem (Exhibit P/11 ), the ribs of the
deceased were broken and they had punctured the lungs. The              B
pleural cavities were full of blood and his body was dragged
causing injuries on his back. In these circumstances, some
blood would but naturally ooze out of the body of the deceased
and his clothes would be blood stained. The post mortem report
(Exhibit P/11 ), the inquest report, the statements of PW2, PW3,        c
PW4, PW7 and PW15 are in line with each other and there is
no noticeable conflict between them. The injuries on the body
of the deceased were so severe that they alone could be the
cause of death and the statement of PW6 in relation to cause
of death is definite and certain. Thus, we see no merit in this
                                                                        0
contention raised on behalf of the accused.
     17. The other submission on behalf of the appellant relates
to contradictions and improvements in the statements of the
witnesses. It is contended that Exhibit P/4 does not confine itself
to the lodging of the FIR. PW3 has not mentioned the presence           E
of PW15 at the place of occurrence while, according to PW15,
he was present at the site. The witnesses had also stated that
the neck of the deceased was broken, while according to PW6,
it was not so. The witnesses, including PW3, PW7 and PW15
have made definite improvements in their statements before the          F
Court in comparison with their statements recorded under
Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer, with
which they were even confronted. The counsel has then argued
that the witnesses have to be of 'sterling worth', otherwise the
case of the prosecution would fall.                                     G
      18. 'Sterling worth' is not an expression of absolute rigidity.
The use of such an expression in the context of criminal
jurisprudence would mean a witness worthy of credence, one
who is reliable and truthful. This has to be gathered from the
entire statement of the witnesses and the demeanour of the              H
    594      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A witnesses, if any, noticed by the Court. Linguistically, 'sterling
  worth' means 'thoroughly excellenf or 'of great value'. This term,
  in the context of criminal jurisprudence cannot be of any rigid
  meaning. It must be understood as a generic term. It is only an
  expression that is used for judging the worth of the statement
B of a witness. To our mind, the statements of the witnesses are
  reliable, trustworthy and deserve credence by the Court. They
  do not seem to be based on any falsehood.
          19. As far as absence of the name of PW15 from the FIR
    (Exhibit P/4) is concerned, it is clear that PW3 was following
C   his father from behind and the moment the accused persons,
    who were large in number, started assaulting his father with
    weapons that they were carrying, for fear of his own life and to
    bring people to save his father, he ran from the site. Obviously,
    PW15 appeared at the scene at that time and PW3 had not
D   seen him at that juncture. Afterwards, when he came to the site
    along with other witnesses, i.e., PW2, PW4 and PW7, he saw
    his father's body being thrown near the hand pump in front of
    the house of the accused. The death of his father would have
    perturbed him so much that his priorities would be only to take
E   his father to the hospital and inform the police, rather than
    viewing as to who was there around him besides the persons
    who had come with him. The presence of PW15, thus, cannot
    be doubted at the site in question. He was going from the bus
    stand to his house and had stopped on the way after seeing
F   the incident. This behavior of PW15 is very normal behavior and
    does not call for the raising of any unnecessary doubts.
    Similarly, in the post mortem report, no bleeding injury was
    noticed, which obviously means that there was no open cut injury
    which was bleeding. In the inquest report, the injuries of the
G   deceased have been noticed and it had also been noticed that
    blood was coming from the body of the deceased which could
    be very possible when examined in conjunction with the
    statement of the witnesses including PW3, PW7 and PW15 that
    the clothes of the deceased were blood stained and his body
H   was dragged from inside the house of the accused to the
       KURIA & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                 595
              [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

outside near the hand pump. No doubt, the eye witnesses have A
stated that the neck of the deceased was broken, while
according to other witnesses, it was lying in a twisted condition.
According to the post mortem report (Exhibit P/11) and
statement of PW6, there were bruises on the entire back
including shoulders. However, no apparent external injury was B
noticed on the neck of the deceased. But after dissecting the
neck, the doctor came to know that there was swelling in the
neck muscles and hard bone edges had fractures which were
prior to the death of the deceased. In Exhibit P/2, when the
Investigating Officer under Item No.8 examined the neck of the  c
deceased, he also noticed that the neck was not stable and
was loosely turning both sides with external aid. This clearly
shows that the neck of the deceased was badly injured and
even had a fracture. It is obvious that there is also no
contradiction between the statement of the witnesses and the 0
medical evidence even in this regard.
     20. These cannot be termed as contradictions between the
statements of the witnesses. They are explainable variations
which are likely to occur in the normal course and do not, in
any way, adversely affect the case of the prosecution. Thus,    E
there are no material contradictions in the statement of the
witnesses or the documents, nor can the presence of PW15
be doubted at the place of occurrence.
     21. For instance PW15, in his cross-examination, had
stated before the Court that Laleng had twisted the neck of the F
deceased. According to the accused, it was not so recorded
in his statement under Section 161, Exhibit D/2. upon which
he explained that he had stated before the police the same
thing, but he does not know why the police did not take note
of the same. Similarly, he also said that he had informed the G
police that the four named accused had dragged the body of
the deceased and thrown it near the hand pump outside their
house, but he does not know why it was not so noted in Exhibit
0/2. There are some variations or insignificant improvements
in the statements of PW3 and PW?. According to the learned H
    596      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A    counsel appearing for the appellants, these improvements are
     of such nature that they make the statement of these witnesses
     unbelievable and unreliable. We are again not impressed with
    this contention. The witnesses have stated that they had
     informed the police of what they stated under oath before the
B   court, but why it was not so recorded in their statements under
     Section 161 recorded by the Investigating Officer would be a
     reason best known to the Investigating Officer. Strangely, when
    the Investigating Officer, PW16, was being cross-examined, no
    such question was put to h.im as to why he did not completely
c    record the statements of the witnesses or whether these
    witnesses had made such afore-mentioned statements.
     Improvements or variations of the statements of the witnesses
    should be of such nature that it would create a definite doubt
     in the mind of the court that the witnesses are trying to state
0   something which is not true and which is not duly corroborated
    by the statements of the other witnesses. That is not the
    situation here. These improvements do not create any legal ·
    impediment in accepting the statements of PW3, PW4, PWiJ
    and PW15 made under oath. This Court has repeatedly taken
E   the view that the discrepancies or improvements which do not
    materially affect the case of the prosecution and are insignificant
    cannot be made the basis for doubting the case of the
    prosecution. The courts may not concentrate too much on such
    discrepancies or improvements. The purpose is to primarily and
    clearly sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from
F   the testimony of the witnesses. Where it does not affect the core
    of the prosecution case, such discrepancy should not be
    attached undue significance. The normal course of human
    conduct would be that while narrating a particular incident, there
    may occur minor discrepancies. Such discrepancies may even
G   in law render credential to the depositions. The improvements
    or variations must essentially relate to the material particulars
    of the prosecution case. The alleged improvements and
    variations must be shown with respect to material particulars
    of thej:asE! and the occurrence. Every such improvement, not
H   directly related to the occurrence, is not a ground to doubt the
      KURIA & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                      597
             [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

testimony of a witness. The credibility of a definite circumstance    A
of the prosecution case cannot be weakened with reference to
such minor or insignificant improvements. Reference in this
regard can be made to the judgments of this Court in Kathi
Bharat Vajsur and Another v. State of Gujarat [(2012) 5 SCC
724], Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and Another v. State                B
of Maharashtra [(2000) 8 SCC 457], D.P. Chadha v. Triyugi
Narain Mishra and Others [(2001) 2 SCC 205], Sukhchain
Singh v. State of Haryana and Others [(2002) 5 SCC 100].
    22. What is to be seen next is whether the version
presented in the Court was substantially similar to what was          C
said during investigation. It is only when exaggeration
fundamentally changes the nature of the case, the Court has to
consider whether the witness was stating truth or not. {Ref. Sunil
Kumar v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi [(2003) 11 SCC 367]}
                                                                      D
     23. These are variations which would not amount to any
serious consequences. The Court has to accept the normal
conduct of a person. The witness who is watching the murder
of a person being brutally beaten by 15 persons can hardly be
expected to a state minute by minute description of the event.        E
Everybody, and more particularly a person who is known to or
is related to the deceased, would give all his attention to take
steps to prevent the assault on the victim and then to make
every effort to provide him with the medical aid and inform the
police. The statements which are recorded immediately upon
the incident would have to be given a little leeway with regard       F
to the statements being made and recorded with utmost
exactitude. It is a settled principle of law that every improvement
or variation cannot be treated as an attempt to falsely implicate
the accused by the witness. The approach of the court has to
be reasonable and practicable. Reference in this regard can           G·
be made to Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana [(2010) 12
SCC 350] and Shiv/al and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh
[(2011) 9 sec 561].
     24. Next contention is that the presence of PW3, PW4,            H
     598     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 10 S.C.R.

A   PW7 and PW15 at the place of occurrence is doubtful.
    Secondly, according to the accused, PW15 is the only eye-
   witness and it is submitted that his statement is not reliable
   and, therefore, cannot be made the foundation for their
   conviction. We have already held that the presence of these
B witnesses at the place of occurrence is neither unnatural nor
   improbable. In fact, their statements are trustworthy and their
   presence at the place of occurrence at different timings is
   plausible and fully fits into the case of the prosecution. The
   version given by these witnesses is fully corroborated by
c documentary and medical evidence. PW3 is an eye-witness to
   the assault on the deceased. He had run away from the site to
   save his life and call his friends and then it was PW15 who
   appeared at the scene and saw the victim being assaulted by
   the accused and being taken into the house of the accused
o from where, after sometime, they dragged out the body of the
  deceased and threw it near the hand pump in the street. The
  eye account given by these witnesses fully finds support from
  the statement of the Investigating Officer, the inquest report
   Exhibit P/2, post-mortem report Exhibit P/11 as well as the
E recoveries effected from the place of occurrence including the
  blood stained earth and wood from the door of the house of
  the accused. PW9 and PW17 are the witnesses to the recovery
  (of weapons) while PW10 and PW11 are the witnesses to the
  seizure of the blood stained cloth of the deceased. PW3 was
F coming from a different place, while his father, the deceased,
  was coming from a different place. He was just following his
  father at a distance and after he saw the incident and found
  his father dead, he lodged an FIR with the police without any
  delay. Eye account given by these witnesses is trustworthy and
  is duly corroborated as well. The Court has stated the principle
G that, as a general rule, the Court can and may act on the
  testimony of a siqgle eye-witness provided he is wholly reliable
  and base the conviction on the testimony of such sole eye-
  witness. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person
  on the sole testimony of a single witness.
H
       KURIA & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                    599
              [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
      25. The testimony of an eye-witness, if found truthful, cannot A
be discarded merely because the eye-witness was a relative
of the deceased. Where the witness is wholly unreliable, the
court may discard the statement of such witness, but where the
witness is wholly reliable or neither wholly reliable nor wholly
unreliable (if his statement is fully corroborated and supported B
by other ocular and documentary evidence), the court may base
its judgment on the statement of such witness. Of course, in the
latter category of witnesses, the court has to be more cautious
and see if the statement of the witness is corroborated.
Reference in this regard can be made to the case of Sunil c
Kumar (supra), Brathi alias Sukhdev Singh Vs. State of
Punjab [(1991) 1 SCC 519) and Alagupandi@ Alagupandian
v. State of Tamil Nadu [2012 (5) SCALE 595).
     26. In light of these principles, it can safely be recorded
that firstly all these witnesses were present at the place of D
occurrence and their statements are reliable. In the alternative,
if we rely upon the statement of PW15 (according to the
accused, the sole eye witness) whose statement, according to
the accused, is unreliable, then this Court should have no
hesitation in basing the conviction on the statement of PW15, E
as the statement of that witness is trustworthy, reliable and is
completely corroborated by other ocular and documentary
evidence.
     27. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants laid
emphasis on the fact that PW5 was an eye-witness but had F
been declared hostile by the court. Thus, the entire case of the
prosecution is based on a mere suspicion and falls to the
ground ..This argument does not impress us at all. No doubt
PW5 had been declared hostile by the prosecutor and he was
subjected to some cross-examination. In his statement, he G
stated that at about 5.30 p.m., he was coming from the village
Bajawan Bus Stand towards his house. On the way, in the street
and lying in front of Laleng's house, he saw the dead body of
Mogji. He claimed that he did not see anything else. He denied
that he knew who had killed Mogji. From the statement of this H
    600      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 10 S.C.R.

A witness, it is clear that he saw the dead body of the deceased
  at the same place where PW3, PW4, PW7 and PW15 had
  seen. Even his statement to this extent fully corroborates the
  statement of other eye-witnesses. We fail to understand, much
  less appreciate, as to what advantage the accused/appellants
B wish to draw from PW1 and PWS being declared hostile.
  Whatever doubt these witnesses could cause to the case of the
  prosecution stands fully supplied and erased by the statement
  of other eye-witnesses and the other medical and expert
  evidence. Another very material piece of evidence which
c directly links the accused to the offence is that when the blood
  stained cloths of the deceased and other articles were
  recovered, sealed and sent for serological examination to the
  FSL and the Chemical Analyst had submitted its report Exhibit
  P/43 after such serological examination, human blood of blood
  group 'O', which was also the blood group of the deceased,
0
  was found on all the three articles namely jhabba, baniyan and
  blood stained dahli.                                       ·
          28. This clearly shows that the body of the deceased was
    dragged from inside the house of the accused and then thrown
E   near the hand pump. This scientific report fully corroborates the
    statement of PW15. Another very important piece of evidence
    is the statement of DW-1, the sole witness who was examined
    by the defence. In fact, it was Kuria himself who stepped into
    the witness box. According to him, there were serious disputes
F   in nelation to the agricultural land between the deceased's family
    and the family of the accused. Such disputes were there for
    neorly two years. According to this witness, there was animosity
    be1)Neen the parties regarding this issue. There were cases
    pending in the court. Though he denied the suggestion that they
G   had murdered Mogji due to this reason, but he does provide a
    motive for the accused persons to commit the offence. In all
    likelihood, that was the cause for murdering the deceased. In
    face of this unimpeachable evidence, ocular and documentary,
    the question of corroboration by unreliable evidence does not
H   arise in the present case. The reliance placed by the accused
        KURIA & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                     601
               [SV1"AIA;~"'."ER KUMAR, J.]

  on the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Punjab v.    A
  Parveen Kumar [(2005) 9 SCC 769] is completely misplaced
  on facts and in law both.
      29. In these circumstances, the cumulative effect of the
  prosecution evidence is that the prosecution has been able to
  prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.                             B
       30. Lastly, it was contended that the provisions of Section
  34, IPC are not attracted in the present case. It is contended
  on behalf of the appellant that they had no common intention
  to kill the deceased and it was not a case of pre-meditated        c
  murder. This argument is noticed only to be rejected.
       31. It has come in evidence that all the accused persons
  had come with weapons, assaulted the deceased and taken
  him inside the house where he was again assaulted by the
  accused persons and after sometime, his body was dragged D
  by the accused pa;sons, including the appellant and thrown near
  the hand pump. If this is not a case of common intention and
  object, it is really doubtful as to which cases can fit into that
  category. There was motive for the accused persons to kill the
  deceased, they had come out with common intention and object E
  to assault and kill the deceased in which they succeeded. In
  the cases where it is not possible to attribute a specific role to
  a particular accused, like the present case, recourse to this
  provision is appropriately made by the prosecution.
       32. According to PW3, Kuria was carrying lath while F
  accused Laleng, son of Bajeng was carrying axe (kulhari) which
' as appeared from the statements of the witnesses, could have
  been used from the O\her end. In relation to dragging the body,
  the question of use of any weapon would not arise. It was a
  communal intended act, in which the accused persons G
  participated accused with the object of killing deceased Mogji.
  The soul of section 34, IPC is the joint liability in doing a criminal
  act. The section is a rule of evidence and does not create a
  substantive offence. The distinctive feature of the section is the
  element of participation in action. The liability of one person for H
    602.    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012) 10 S.C.R.

A an offence committed by the other in the course of criminal act
  perpetrates to all other persons, under Section 34 IPC, if such
  criminal act is done in furtherance of the common intention of
  the person who joins in committing the crime. The Court has
  to examine the prosecution evidence in regard to application
8 of Section 34 cumulatively and if the ingredients are satisfied,
  the consequences must follow. It is difficult to state any hard
  and fast rule which can be applied JJ.lliversally to all cases. It
  will always depend on the facts and circumstances of the given
  case whether the person involved in the commission of the
C crime with a common intention can be held guilty of the main
  offence committed by them together. The provisions of Section
  34 IPC come to the aid of law while dealing with the cases of
  criminal act and common intention. Its basic essentials are :
  that the criminal act is committed by several persons, such act
  is done in furtherance of common intention of all and each of
D such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it
  were done by him alone. Reference in this regard can be made
  to the cases of Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal [2012
  (6) SCALE 381), Hemchand Jhas alias Hemchandra Jha v.
  State of Bihar ((2008) 11 SCC 303) and Nand Kishore v. State
E of Madhya Pradesh ((2011) 12 SCC 120).
        33. The above-stated ingredients are fully satisfied in the
  present case. Undoubtedly, all the accused had committed
  criminal acts punishable under the provisions of the IPC. They
F had done so with common intention, as is evident from the
  statement of the witnesses and the documents on record. And
  lastly, each one of them, whether he actually made any assault
  on the body of the deceased or not, dragged him and threw
  his body in the gully or not, shall all be deemed to have
  committed the said offences with the aid of Section 34 IPC.
G Thus, this contention also has no merit and is rejected.
       34. For the reasons afore-recorded, the appeal is
   dismissed.

H K.K.T.                                       Appeal dismissed.