Holding

Minor discrepancies in eyewitness testimony do not defeat the conviction when the residual evidence is sufficient to establish guilt under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC.

Summary

The appellants Bhola, Prithu and Dharmu were accused of assaulting the deceased Fandi Ram with fists and stones during a quarrel, leading to his death. The trial court acquitted them, but the Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside the acquittal and convicted them under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Supreme Court examined whether the inconsistencies and omissions in the eye‑witness testimonies warranted overturning the conviction. It held that minor discrepancies in witness statements do not invalidate the entire evidence and that the court must sift truth from embellishment. Applying this principle, the Court found the prosecution evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court’s judgment.

Issues considered

Whether discrepancies and contradictions in eye‑witness testimonies render the evidence unreliable enough to overturn the conviction under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC.
Whether the facts constitute a 'sudden quarrel' falling under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, justifying conviction under Section 304 Part I.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 300 Exception 4, s. 302, s. 304 Part I, s. 34

Subjects

culpable homicide not amounting to murdereye‑witness testimonyevidence appraisalSection 304 IPCSection 34 IPCsudden quarrelconviction upheld

Judgment

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 765

~...., PRITHU @ PRITHI CHAND AND ANR. A
V.
STATE OF H.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2009
FEBRUARY 18, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY,
JJ.]
....
~ Penal Code, 1860 :
s. 304 Part I rlw s. 34 and s. 300, Exception 4 - Sudden c
quarrel - Accused allegedly gave fist blows to deceased and
hit him with stones - Acquittal by trial court - Set aside by
High Court in appeal - Held: Minor discrepancies in statement
of witnesses was inconsequential - Evidence was sufficient to
.... convict the accused - High Court right in convicting the
accused persons u/s 304 Part I.
D
r
Evidence - Witness - Appreciation of - Principles re"
iterated.
According to the prosecution, In course of a quarrel,
the accused persons gave fist blows to the deceased and E
hit him with stones. The three accused faced trial for
alleged commission of offence punishable under s.302
--1._
read with s.34 of IPC. The trial court did not find the
,.
evidence to be credible and directed acquittal of the
accused. On appeal by the State, the High Court set aside F
the order of acquittal and directed each of the accused
persons guilty of offence punishable under s.304 Part I,
IPC r/w s.34 IPC. Hence the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
G
/:
... '
HELD:1. The accused persons pleaded that the
evidence of the eye witnesses cannot be accepted as
there were omissions, contradictions and discrepancies
in the evidence of most of the prosecution witnesses. In
765 H
766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A the effort to false implication prosecution made -,.....-~-

introduction of PW-9 an· eye witness. It is fairly settled
position in law that even if there are some omissions,
contradictions and discrepancies the entire evidence
cannot be discarded. After exercising care and caution
B and sifting the evidence to separate the truth from untruth,
exaggeration, embellishments and improvements, the
court can come to a conclusion as to whether the residual
"'!'"
evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. [Para 5] .,._
[ 770-8]
c 2. A witness cannot be accepted to possess a
photographic memory and to recall the deals of on t
incident verbatim. Ordinarily, it so happens that a witness
i~ overtaken by events. A witness could not have
anticipated the occurrence which very often has an
p element of surprise. The mental faculties cannot,
therefore, be expected to be attuned to absorb all the
" "I

details. Thus, minor discrepancies were bound to occur
1\:r
in the statement of witnesses. [Para 61 [ 770-F]
3. The High Court analysed the evidence in the
E aforesaid background and rightly came to the conclusion
that the guilt of the accused persons was established.
[Para. 7] [ 770-G]
~·

Sohra6 and Anr. V. The State of M.P. AIR (1972) SC 2020; ...
F $f{!Jte of UP. v. M.K. Anthony AIR (1985) SC 48 and Bharwada
Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat AIR (1983) SC 753 -
relied on.
Case Law Reference
AIR (1972) SC 2020 relied on Para 5
G
AIR (1985) SC 48 relied on Para 5 ... ....
'

AIR (1983) SC 753 relied on Para 6
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
H No. 330 of 2009
PRITHU @ PRITHI CHAND AND ANR. V. 767
STATE OF H.P.

..., From the Judgement and Order dated 27.05.2008 of the A
High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal
No. 150 of 1994.
Anil Nag, Narender Tyagi, for the Appellant.
Naresh K. Sharma, for the Respondent.
B
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by

..,, DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J .
;,, 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court setting aside the c
acquittal recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Kangra, Dharamshala. Three accused persons, Bhola, Pruthu
and Dharmu faced trial for alleged commission of offence
punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal
~' Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The High Court by the impugned D
.,..,
judgmenf set aside the order of acquittal and directed each of
\
• I
the accused persons guilty of offence punishable under Section
304 Part I, IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each
~
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/-. E
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows :
Fandi Ram (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased')
J_
owed certain amount to Prehlad Chand (PW-10), merchant of
I J,
village Bah on account of purchases made on credit. Appellant
is son of PW-10. On 14.2.1992 at 8.00 a.m. the accused F
appellant visited house of Fandi Ram and demanded payment
~ due to his father. Fandi Ram told Bhola that he had to take loan
from the society and would make payment. Bhola who was
carrying a bottle of liquor asked Fandi Ram to go to society
.shop after visiting the house of accused Prithu. Both of them G
,. went to the house of Prithu located in the village of Fandi Ram.
' " All the three sat in the house and started consuming liquor in
which his brother Dharmu also joined. At about 2 p.m. Singhu
(PW-4) son of deceased was sent by his widow Kailasho Devi
(PW-3) to see if Fandi Ram had gone to society shop. Singho H
768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A reminded his father, but all the three accused told that they would ,.....--.
accompany him to society shop. Singho then came and left for
village Kath la and Sardair Lal (PW-5) another son of deceased
went to water mill (Gharat).
At about 3.30 p.m Kail.Jsho and her son Jagdish from their
B house noticed all the three accused giving fist blows to Fandi
Ram near the school, located in front of their house, separated
by a drain from the school. Kailasho shouted why her husband 'r
was being beaten and she accompanied by Jagdish rushed to ~

the place of occurrence where her husband was being given a
c beating. Bhola accused in her presence gave a stone blow on
the head of Fandi Ram and ran away. Remaining accused also
hit him with the stone on the head. Jagdish (PW-2) intervened
but the accused Dharamu and Prithu also gave beatings to him.
The sleeve of the shirt of Jagdish got torn and one sleeve was
D left on the spot. Jagdish tied a cloth around the head of his father, ~
which was bleeding due to injuries. They took Fandi Ram to the ,-'(

shop of Prehlad Chand (PW-10). On the way Sardari Lal (PW-
5) who was coming from water mill met them. He inquired about
the cause of injuries from his father. Fandi Ram told him of the
E accused beating him with stones with all the other accused due
to the enmity of Panchayat elections. Then on the way to the
shop of Prehlad Chand, Janam Singh, Nambardar (PW-6) met
th~m who was also told by the deceased that he was beaten by
);
the accused with stones due to Panchayat elections. Prehlad -l I

F Chand was also told by the deceased that he was beaten by
the accused, who then tried to get the matter compounded and
settled for Rs.600/-. But accused did not agree to make
payment. Thereafter in the shop of Prehlad Chand, Fandi Ram
fell unconscious. On way a Compounder Desh Raj (PW -12)
provided him first aid.
G ~
Fandi Ram at about 11.00 p.m. succumbed to the injuries. ~' '
A
Further case revealed is that during night due to distance, injured
could not be taken to hospital at Shahpur located at a distance
of 25 Kilometers, nor police could be informed. In the morning
H of 15th February, 1992, Sardari Lal came to Shahpur to lodge
PRITHU @ PRITHI CHAND AND ANR. V. 769
STATE OF H.P. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

........ ........, report but when he reached village Darini, the bus had already A
left. Therefore, Darini informed police station Shahpur on
telephone about the occurrence upon which information A.S.1.
Feru Ram (PW-15) recorded Rapat Ex.P.19 and proceeded to
the spot. In village of the deceased he recorded statement Ex.P-
5 of Jagdish Singh (PW-2), sent the same for registration of a. B
case. Prepared inquest report Ex. P. 2 and took Pama Ex. P.
10 vide memo Ex. P. 8 in possession. Investigation was
"'P'
_.,
undertaken. After completion of investigation charge sheet was
'; filed.
Trial Court did not accept the evidence to be credible and c
directed acquittal. State questioned the acquittal.
The High Court found that the trial Court has over looked
-"'·
I' the evidence of the eye witnesses, more particularly, PWs 2 to
ml 5. It was also noted that PW-10 the father of accused Bhola
"' accepted that Kailasho Devi accompanied by her son and the D
__;, ... deceased in injured condition came to his shop and on enquiry
Fandi Ram and his wife informed him that he was beaten by
accused Dharmu and Fundi Ram also nodded his head
supporting the version of his wife. The High Court noted that the
evidence clearly established that the accused persons took liquor E

-
~

Iii.'
with the deceased in the house of accused Bhola. There was
election dispute. PW-10 who was Pradhan proclaimed that he
did not vote for a winning party and this was the bone of
-i.
_, ,.. contention between the accused persons and the deceased.
The accused persons were also drunk. They started quarreling F
with the deceased and gave him a fist blow and assaulted him
with some stones which was witnessed by Kailasho Devi and
her son Jagdish Singh from their house. Therefore, the order of
acquittal was set aside.
~
3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant G
-1 submitted that the evidence of the eye witnesses was not reliable
> and, therefore, the order of acquittal should not have been set
-' aside.

-..' 4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand
submitted that the High Court had rightly held that in course of H
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A sudden quarrel the occurrence took place and, therefore, had
convicted the accused persons in terms of Exception 4 to
Section 300 IPC by altering the conviction to Section 304 Part
llPC.
5. It is to be noted that the accused persons pleaded that
B the evidence of the eye witnesses cannot be accepted as there
were omissions, contradictions and discrepancies in the
evidence of most of the prosecution witnesses. In the effort to
false implication prosecution made introduction of PW-9 an eye
witness. It is fairly settled position in law that even if there are
C some omissions, contradictions and discrepancies the entire
evidence cannot be discarded. After exercising care and caution ·-
a.nd sifting the evidence to separate the truth from untruth,
exaggeration, embellishments and improvements the court can J-
I-
come to a conclusion as to whether the residual evidence is I

D sufficient to convict the accused. (See Sohrab and Anr. V The iii
State of M.P. (AIR 1972 SC 2020) and State of U.P. v. M.K.
,.. I
"( :)-
Anthony (AIR 1985 SC 48).
6. In Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat
t;,;-
'~

(AIR 1983 SC 753), it was observed that undue importance
E. should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and r--
discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and
shake the basic version of the prosecution witnesses. A witness (:-
)Ill

cannot be accepted to possess a photographic memory and to
~:
recall the deals of an incident verbatim. Ordinarily, it so happens ....
F that a witness is overtaken by events. A witness could not have
been anticipated the occurrence which very often has an element
r-
of surprise. The mental faculties cannot, therefore, be expected "\1-
to be attuned to absorb all the details. Thus, minordiscrepancies
l
·,,.
'!
were bound to occur in the statement of witnesses.
G 7. The High Court has analysed the evidence in the ...
I.
!·._.:'
aforesaid background and has rightly come to the conclusion ....
that the guilt of the accused persons has been established.
8. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
"
-' •'
'
J;__'
. B.B.B. Appeal dismissed . I
(

~:
j