RAKESH & ANOTHERversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

                    [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 34

A                      RAKESH & ANOTHER
                                  v.
                  STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 339 of 2008)
                       SEPTEMBER 19, 2011
B
        [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

         Indian Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 - Death of PW11's
  uncle due to assault by sharp edged weapons - Testimony
C of PW11 - Conviction of accused-appellants - Challenge to
  - Held: It was improbable that the appellants had been
  enroped falsely as promptness in lodging the FIR showed that
  there was no time for manipulation - Prompt and early
  reporting of the occurrence by PW11 with all its vivid details
D gave assurance regarding truth of its version - PW 11 faced
  grilling cross-examination - However, no discrepancy or error ·
  could be shown in spite of the fact that he was nephew of the
  deceased - PW11 gave full account of the overt acts of the
  accused while causing injuries to the deceased - He was a
e natural witness and his testimony inspired confidence and
  was, thus, worth acceptance - The other circumstances
  particularly, the statements of the Investigating Officer
  (PW.21) and PW9, the arrest of the accused, and recovery
  of weapons on their disclosure statements proved the
F prosecution case - Conviction of accused-appellants
  accordingly upheld.

         Criminal Trial - Murder - Time of death - Determination
    of- Post mortem examination conducted by PW-8 - Opinion
    of PW-8 as to time of death - Held: The opinion of PW-8 that
G   death had occurred within 3 to 6 hours prior to post-mortem
    examination, does not mean that PW8 was able to fix any
    exact time of death - The physical condition of the body after
    death would depend on a large number of circumstances/
    factors and nothing can be said with certainty - In determining
H                                34
RAKESH & ANR. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                     35


the issue, various factors such as age and health condition        A
of the deceased, climatic and atmospheric conditions of the
place of occurrence and the conditions under which the body
is preserved, are required to be considered - The.exact time
of death cannot be established scientifically and precisely.

     Evidence - Inconsistency between medical evidence and
                                                                   8
ocular evidence - Effect of - Held: The ocular evidence would
have primacy unless it is established that oral evidence is
totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence.

     Evidence - Witness - Related witness - Held: Evidence         C
of related witness can be relied upon provided it is trustworthy
- Mere relationship does not disqualify a witness - Witnesses
who are related to the victim are as competent to depose the
facts as any other witness - However, such evidence required
to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before reaching        o
to a conclusion on the conviction of the accused in a given
case.                                                         ·

     Evidence - Contradictions between narrations of
witnesses - Effect of - Held: Even if there are minor
discrepancies bet.veen the narrations of witnesses when they       E
speak on details, unless such contradictions are of material
dimensions, the same should not be used to discard the
evidence in its entirety - Trivial discrepancy ought not to
obliterate the otherwise acceptable evidence.
                                                                   F
     The prosecution case was that the two appellants
alongwith another accused caused the death of PW11's
uncle by assaulting him with sharp edged weapons. All
the weapons allegedly used in the crime were recovered
on the disclosure statements made by the appellants and G
the other accused. PW.8 conducted post-mortem on the
body of the deceased. In his opinion, there were thr~e ·
incised wounds on the body- one on the neck, one on
the chest and another in the abdomen and all the injuries
had been caused by sharp edged weapons. PW11 H
    36    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R


A testified to have witnessed the incident.

        The trial court convicted the two appellants as also
    the other accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced
    them to rigorous imprisonment for life. The conviction
    was upheld by the High Court.
8
       The appellants challenged thetr conviction before
  this Court inter a/ia on grounds 1) that the ocular evidence
  was contradictory to the medical evidence as regards the
  time of death; and 2) that the alleged eye witness PW.11
C was closely related to the victim and none of the
  independent witnesses examined by the prosecution
  supported its case to the extent that PW.11 could be
  present on the place of occurrence at the relevant time.

0        Dismissing the appeal, the Court
      HELD:1.1. It is a settled legal proposition that the
  ocular evidence would have primacy unless it is
  established that oral evidence is totally irreconcilable with
  the medical evidence. Where the medical evidence goes
E so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the
  ocular evidence if proved, the ocular evidence may be
  disbelieved. [Para 9] [45-C-E]

      1.2. The opinion of PW-8 that death I ad occurred
F within 3 to 6 hours prior to post-mortem examination,
  does not mean that PW.8 was able to fix any exact time
  of death. The physical condition of the body after death
  would depend on a large number of circumstances/
  factors and nothing can be said with certainty. In
G determining the issue, various factors such as age and
  health condition of the deceased, climatic and
  atmospheric conditions of the place of occurrence and
  the conditions under which the body is preserved, are
  required to be considered. The exact time of death cannot
H be established scientifically and precisely. DW.1,
 RAKESH & ANR. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH            37

examined by the appellants in their defence, deposed that A
incident occurred at 11.00 a.m. which is consistent with
the prosecution case and does not tilt the balance in
favour of the appellants. [Paras 10, 11] [45-F-H; 46-A-E]

     State of U.P. v. Hari Chand (2009) 13 SCC 542: 2009 B
(7) SCR 149; Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh
(2010) 10 SCC 259: 2010 (13) SCR 311; Bhajan Singh @
Harbhajan Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC
421; Mangu Khan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2005 SC
1912: 2005 (2) SCR 368 and Baso Prasad & Ors. v. State of C
Bihar AIR 2007 SC 1019: 2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 431 - relied
on.

     2. Evidence of related witness can be relied upon
provided it is trustworthy. Mere relationship does not
disqualify a witness. Witnesses who are related to the D
victim are as competent to depose the facts as any other
witness. Such evidence is required to be carefully
scrutinised and appreciated before reaching to a
conclusion on the conviction of the accused in a given
case. [Para 13] [46-G-H; 47-A]                           E

     Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar (1996) 1 SCC 614: 1995
(5) Suppl. SCR 239; Himanshu @ Chintu v. State (NCT of
Delhi) (2011) 2 sec 36: 2011 (1) SCR 48 and Bhajan Singh
@ Harbhajan Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC F
421 - relied on.

    3. PW.11 was closely related to the victim being his
nephew. His evidence requires a very careful and close
scrutiny. The deposition of PW.11 clearly reveals that
incident occurred at 10.30 a.m. and the appellants G
alongwith 'D' caused injuries to the deceased with
weapons such as knife, gupti and 'katarna' on the neck,
chest and stomach. At the time of incident, PW.11 had
been at a short distance from the victim. He also deposed
about the motive that appellant no.1 wanted utensils from H
    38    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R


A   the deceased, who refused to oblige him and that
    appellant no.1 had threatened the deceased to face dire·
    consequences. In cross-examination, he admitted that at
    the time of the incident, PW.6, PW.12 and PW.15 etc., were
    with him. He denied that he reached the place of
B   occur,.nce on being informed by DW.1 and further
    denied tile suggestion that he had not seen the quarrel
    between the accusP.d persons and the deceased. He
    gave a full account of the overt acts of the accused while
    causing injuries to the deceased. His evidence has to be
C   examined taking into consideration that the site plan
    prepared by the Patwari make it clear that the incident
    occurred on a main road and the victim as well as PW.11
    were on the same road. There was no obstruction in
    between, thus PW.11 could clearly view the incident. ·
    Though, there has been some dispute regarding the
0   distance between the two, but taking into consideration
    the fact that the accused had been very well known to
    the witness being resident of the same village, the
    distance becomes immaterial for the reason that the
    witness could recogni_ze him even from that distance.
E   Deposition of PW.6 corroborated the case of the
    prosecution to the extent that PW.11 was at the place of
    occurrence earlier to him. [Para 14-15] [47-B-D-H; 48-A-
    C]
F      4. It is evident that incident occurred <t 11.30 a.m. The
  victim was taken to the hospital where he was examined
  by the doctor and declared dead. PW.11 went from
  hospital to police station and lodged the FIR at 12.30 p.m.
  wherein all the three accused were specifically named.
G The distance of the police station from the place of
  occurrence had been only 1 k.m. The overt acts of the
  accused had been mentioned. The motive was also
  disclosed. It is improbable that the appellants had been
  enroped falsely as promptness in lodging the FIR shows
H that there was no time for manipulation. Prompt and early
 RAKESH & ANR. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                   39

  reporting of the occurrence by the informant with all its       A
  vivid details gives an assurance regarding truth of its
. version. Allegations may not be an after-thought or having
  a colourable ,llersion of the incidents. [Para 16] [48-E-G]
               /
       Kishan Singh (dead) (hr. Lrs. v. Gurpa/ Singh & Ors. AIR
                                                                  8
  2010 SC 3624: 2010 (10) SCR 16 - relied on.

      5. It does not appeal to reason as to why the witness
 would falsely enrope the appellants and other accused
 in such a heinous crime and spare the real culprits to go
 scot-free. In the FIR, PW.11 has disclos&d that his father       C
 PW.10, PW.6 and PW.12 reached the place of occurrence
 at a later stage. As the parties were known to each other
 being the residents of the same village, the identity etc.
·was not in dispute. [Para 16] [48-H; 49-A-B]
                                                            D
       6. The Trial Court had appreciated the evidence on
  record, and reached the conclusion to the effect that
. PW.11 was a trustworthy witness and had been an eye-
  witness of the incident. He had faced grilling cross-
  examination. However, no discrepancy or error could be E
  shown in spite of the fact that he was nephew of the
  deceased. On careful scrutiny of his deposition, his
 statement was found trustworthy. The court further held
 that even if the other witnesses on the spot had not
 supported the prosecution case, PW.11 was a natural
 witness and had seen the incident. The other F
 circumstances particularly, the statements of the
 Investigating Officer (PW.21) and PW.9, the arrest of
 accused, recovery of weapons on their disclosure
 statements proved the prosecution case. The depositions
 of PW.21 had been natural. There was no proof that the G
 1.0. (PW.21) had any animosity or any kind of interest and
 closeness to the deceased. Therefore, the question of not
 believing the statement of 1.0. (PW.21) does not arise.
 [Para 17] [49-C-F]
                                                            H
    40    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A      7.1. There are concurrent findings of fact by the two
  courts below. Unless the findings so recorded are found
  to be perverse, this Court should not generally interfere.
  Even if there are minor discrepancies between the
  narrations of witnesses when they speak on details,
B unless such contradictions are of material dimensions,
  the same should not be used to discard the evidence in
  its entirety. The trivial discrepancy ought not to obliterate
  the otherwise acceptable evidence. [Paras 18, 19] [49-G;
  50-A-B]
c     7.2. The courts below reached the correct conclusion
  in accepting the prosecution case. PW.11 is a natural
  witness and his testimony inspired confidence and is,
  thus, worth acceptance. The facts and circumstances of
  the instant case do not warrant any interference by this
D Court. [Para 21] [50-F-H]

       Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam (2009) 13 SCC 330:
  2009 (9) SCR 902 and Leela Ram (Dead) thr. Duli Chand v.
  State of Haryana & Anr. (1999) 9 SCC 525: 1999 (2) Suppl.
E SCR 280 - relied on.

                        Case Law Reference:
         2009 (7) SCR 149           relied on     Para 9
         2010 (13) SCR 311          relied on     Para 9
F
         c2011) 1 sec 421           relied on     Para 9, 13
         2005 (2) SCR 368           relied on     Para10
         2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 431    relied on     Para 11
G
         1995 (5) Suppl. SCR 239 relied on        Para 12
         2011 (1) SCR 48            relied on     Para 13
         2010 (10) SCR 16           relied on     Para 16
H        2009 (9) SCR 902           relied on     Para 18
 RAKESH & ANR. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                  41


    1999 (2) Suppl. SCR 280 relied on           Para 20          A
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 339 of 2008.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 15.12.2006 of the High
Court of Judicature at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal Nos 518 &     B
890 of 1997.

    Siddharth Aggarwal, Aditya Wadhoa, Stui Gujral, Senthil
Jagadeesan for the Appellant.

    Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondent.
                                                                 c
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been
preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.12.2006        o
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur in Criminal
Appeal Nos. 518 and 890 of 1997.

    2. Facts as explained by the prosecution have been that:

      A. On 5.3.1996, on the day of 'Hali' at around 11.30 a.m., E
one Kailash @ Killu was assaulted by the appellants alongwith
another accused in front of the house of one Rama Tailor. Anil
(PW.11), nephew of the deceased, who had been following
Kailash (deceased), raised an alarm and the assailants were
caught at the spot. Various persons gathered at the place of F
occurrence but the assailants managed to flee. The injured
Kailash was taken to the hospital but succumbed to his injuries.
!n view of the above, an FIR was lodged under Section 302 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as 'IPC') and
Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, within one hour of the G
incident at 12.30 p.m., wherein both the appellants and other
accused were named. In the FIR it was also stated that two
policemen, namely, Ramdas Havaldar and Pannalal Sainik
came at the scene and got the accused persons released from
the mob and, thus, they succeeded in running away.               H
     42     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


·A        B. Dr. R.K. Singhvi (PW.8), conducted the post-mortem on
     the body of the deceased on the same day. In his opinion, there
     were three incised wounds found on his body, one on the neck,
     one on the chest and another in the abdomen. All the injuries
     had been caused by sharp edged weapons and Kailash had
B    died within three to six hours prior to conducting the post-
     mortem examination.

          C. During the course of investigation, the appellants were
     arrested and the weapons used in the offence were recovered
C    on their disclosure statements. After concluding the
     investigation, chargesheet was filed.

           D. The case was committed for Sessions trial. The,
     prosecution examined a large number of witnesses in support
     of its case. One Halle (DW.1) was examined in defence and
D    after conclusion of the trial, all the three accused were convicted
     for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC vide judgment
     and order dated 21.2.1997 and were awarded sentence of
     rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each,
     in default thereof, to serve further sentence of one year.
E
          E. Being aggrieved, all the three accused/convicts
     preferred two appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos. 518 & 890 of
     1997 before the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur, which
     were decided by judgment and order dated 10.2.2005 in
     absence of their counsel.
F
          F. Being aggrieved, the present two appellants preferred
     criminal appeals before this Court i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos.
     1463-64 of 2005 which were allowed vide judgment and order
     dated 20.7.2006 and this Court after setting aside the judgment
G    and order dated 10.2.2005 of the High Court of Judicature at
     Jabalpur, remanded the appeals to be heard by the High Court ·
     afresh.

         G. In pursuance of the said judgment and order of this
     Court dated 20.7.2006, the appeals have been heard afresh
H
 RAKESH & ANR. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                   43
           [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

and dismissed vide judgment and order dated 15.12.2006 by A
the High Court.

    Hence, this appeal.

     3. Before proceeding with the ca$e on merit, it may be
                                                                   B   .
pertinent to mention here that so far as the case of the appellant
Rakesh is concerned, he had already served the sentence of
more than 14 years and has been granted premature release
by the State. Appellant Rajesh has served about 7 -1 /2 years
and is still in jail. The third person Dinesh did not prefer any
appeal so we are not concerned with him so far as this appeal C
is concerned.

     4. Shri Siddharth Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants, has submitted that the Trial Court had placed
very heavy reliance upon the alleged eye-witnesses Khemchand      D
(PW.10) and Anil (PW.11) who, in fact, could not be the eye-
witnesses at all. The deposition of other witnesses examined
by the prosecution, falsify the prosecution's case in entirety.
There have been material inconsistencies in the depositions of
Khemchand (PW.10) and Anil (PW.11 ), and their entire             E
evidence has to be discredited. The High Court after
considering the circumstances, did not find the evidence of
Khemchand (PW.10) trustworthy, however, failed to appreciate
that the evidence of Anil (PW.11) was also liable to be treated
similarly. The ocular evidence is contradictory to the medical    F
evidence as the incident had occurred at 11.30 a.m., FIR had
been lodged at 12.30 p.m. The post-mortem examination was
conducted at 1.00 p.m·. on the same day i.e. 5.3.1996. The
Doctor opined that Kailash @ Killu had died within 3 to 6 hours
before the post-mortem examination. Anil (PW.11) relied upon      G
by the High Court, is closely related to the deceased Kailash
@ Killu and none of the independent witnesses examined by
the prosecution supported its case to the extent that Anil
(PW.11) could be present on the place of occurrence at the
relevant time. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
                                                                  H
    44     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A      5. Per contra, Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, learned counsel
  appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the appeal
  contending that there is no rule of law prohibiting reliance upon
  the evidence of the close relatives of the victims, however, such
  evidence has to be carefully scrutinised. The medical evidence
B may not be conclusive regarding the time of death as the
  physical condition of a body after death depends upon various
  factors i.e. age, geographical and climatic conditions of the
  place of occurrence etc. The facts and circumstances of the
  case do not warrant interference with the concurrent findings
c of the facts recorded by the courts below. The appeal lacks
  merit and is liable to be dismissed.

         6. We have considered the rival submissions made by the
    learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

D         7. According to the prosecution case, Rakesh hit on the
    right side of the neck with knife, Rajesh on the right portion of
    the chest by gupti and Dinesh hit by 'Kalama' (Axe having long
    wooden handle of 42 inches) on the right portion of the stomach
    of Kailash @ Killu, deceased. This evidence stands duly
E   supported by the medical evidence as Dr. R.K. Singhvi (PW.8),
    on conducting the post-mortem examination found the following
    injuries on his person:

         (i) Incised wound on the right portion of right clerical bone
         of 1.5x2x5 ems with regular edges. Faciea muscle, blood
F        vessel lungs was torn, blood was deposited in the chest.

         (ii) Incised wound on the right chest on third inter-cosier
         space of 5 cm x 1.5 cm x 5 cm. Faciea muscle and blood
         vessels had been cut.
G
         (iii) Incised wound in the right chest on ninth intercoster
         space of 4 ems x 2 cm x 4 ems.

      In the opinion of Doctor Singhvi, all the injuries appeared
  to have been caused within 3 to 6 hours by sharp edged
H weapons prior to the post-mortem examination.
  RAKESH & ANR. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                      45
            [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

      8. All the weapons used in the crime had been recovered         A
in the disclosure statements made by the appellants and other
accused. In the opinion of Dr. R.K. Singhvi (PW.8), injuries
nos.1, 2 and 3 could be caused by the weapons used in the
offence. The question does arise as to whether there is
inconsistency/contradiction in the medical and ocular evidence.       B
The evidence on record clearly reveal that injuries had been
caused to Kailash @ Killu, deceased, on his neck, chest and
right portion of the stomach.

      9. It is a settled legal proposition that the ocular evidence   C
would have primacy unless it is established that oral evidence
is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence. More so, the
ocular testimony of a witness has a greater evidentiary value
vis-a'-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the
ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in
the process of the evaluation of evidence. However, where the         D
medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all
possibility of the ocular evidence if proved, the ocular evidence
may be disbelieved. (Vide: State of U.P. v. Hari Chand, (2009)
13 SCC 542; Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
(2010) 10 SCC 259; and Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh                 E
& Ors. v. State of Haryana. (2011) 7 SCC 421).

      10. So far as the opinion of the doctor that death had
occurred within 3 to 6 hours prior to post-mortem examination,
does not mean that Dr. R.K. Singhvi (PW.8) was able to fix any        F
exact time of death. The issue raised by the learned counsel
for the appellants is no more res integra.

     In Mangu Khan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2005
SC 1912, this Court examined a similar issue wherein the post-
mortem report mentioned that the death had occurred within 24         G
hours prior to post-mortem examination. In that case, such an
opinion did not match with the prosecution case. This Court
examined the issue elaborately and held that physical condition
of the body after death would depend on a large number of
                                                                      H
     46     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A    circumstances/factors and nothing can be said with certainty.
     In determining the issue, various factors such as age and health
     condition of the deceased, climatic and atmospheric conditions
     of the place of occurrence and the conditions under which the
     body is preserved, are required to be considered. There has
B    been no cross-examination of the doctor on the issue as to
     elicit any of the material fact on which a possible argument
     could be based in this regard. The acceptable ocular evidence
     cannot be dislodged on such hypothetical basis for which no
     proper grounds were made.
c         11. In Base Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 2007 SC
     1019, while considering a similar issue, this Court held that
     exact time of death cannot be established scientifically and
     precisely.

D         Halle (DW.1 ), examined by the appellants in their defence,
     deposed that incident occurred at 11.00 a.m. which is
     consistent with the prosecution case. Thus, in view of the above,
     the submission so advanced by the learned counsel for the
     appellants, is not tenable and thus, does not tilt the balance in
.E   favour of the appellants. The argument does not require any
     further consideration.

         12. This Court in Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar, (1996)
     1 sec 614, defined 'interested witness' as:

F         "A close relative who is a natural witness cannot be
          regarded as an interested witness. The term 'interested'
          postulates that the witness must have some direct interest
          in having the accused somehow or the other convicted for
          some animus or for some other reason."
G
       13. Evidence of related witness can be relied upon ..
  provided it is trustworthy. Mere relationship does not disqualify
  a witness. Witnesses who are related to the victim are as
  competent to depose the facts as any other witness. Such
H evidence is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated
  RAKESH & ANR. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                     47
            [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
  before reaching to a conclusion on the conviction of the A
- accused in a given case. (See: Himanshu @ Chintu v. State
  (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 2 sec 36; and Bhajan Singh @
  Harbhajan Singh & Ors. (supra).
      14. Anil (PW.11), undoubtedly, has been closely related to B
 the victim being his nephew. His evidence requires a very
 careful and close scrutiny in the light of the aforesaid settled
 legal propositions.

        15. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel
  for the appellants has been that the statements of Khemchand        C
  (PW.10) and Anil (PW.11) have been mutually destructive, thus
  both are liable to be discarded altogether. The High Court has
  disbelieved Khemchand (PW.10) to the extent that he was
  present at the time of incident and thus, could not be an eye-
  witness. Deposition of Anil (PW.11) clearly reveals that incident   D
  occurred at 10.30 a.m. in front of the house of Rama Tailor and
  the appellants alongwith Dinesh caused injuries to Kailash
  (deceased) with weapons such as knife, gupti and 'katarna' on
. the neck, chest and stomach. At the time of incident, Anil
  (PW.11) had been at a short distance from the victim. lshwar        E
  Nayak (PW.6), Dharmendra (PW.12) and other persons had
  also gathered there. He also deposed about the motive that
  Rakesh, accused, wanted utensils from Kailash (deceased),
  who refused to oblige the accused. Rakesh, accused had
  threatened Kailash to face dire consequences. In cross-             F
  examination, he has admitted that at the time of the incident,
  lshwar Nayak (PW.6), Dharmendra (PW.12) and Pradeep
  Pathak (PW.15) etc., were with him. He denied that he reached
  the place of occurrence on being informed by Halle (DW.1) and
  further denied the suggestion that he had not seen the quarrel      G
  between the accused persons and the deceased. He gave a
  full account of the overt acts of the accused while causing
  injuries to Kailash. His evidence has to be examined taking into
  consideration that the site plan prepared by the Patwari make
  it clear that the incident occurred on a main road and the victim   H
    48     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A as well as Anil (PW.11) were on the same road. There was no
  obstruction in between, thus Anil (PW.11) could clearly view the
  incident. Though, there has been some dispute regarding the
  distance between the two, but taking into consideration the fact
  that the accused had been very well known to the witness being
B resident of the same village, the distance becomes immaterial
  for the reason that the witness could recognize him even from
  that distance. The other eye-witnesses, particularly, lshwar
  Nayak (PW.6), Dharmendra (PW.12) and Pradeep Pathak
  (PW.15) did not support the case of the prosecution
C appropriately. Dharmendra (PW.12) stood declared hostile.
  Deposition of lshwar Nayak (PW.6) has corroborated the case
  of the prosecution to the extent that Anil (PW.11) was at the
  place of occurrence earlier to him. In cross-examination, he
  deposed as under:

D        "Half the boys ran towards the spot of incident immediately.
         Amongst them was Anil also. I did not go with Anil."

       16. In view of the above, it is evident that incident occurred
  at 11.30 a.m. Kailash, injured was taken to the hospital where
E he was examined by the doctor and declared dead. Anil
  (PW.11) went from hospital to police station and lodged the FIR
  at 12.30 p.m. wherein all the three accused were specifically
  named. The distance of the police station from the place of
  occurrence had been only 1 k.m. The overt acts of the accused
F had been mentioned. The motive was also disclosed. It is
  improbable that the appellants had been enroped falsely as
  promptness in lodging the FIR shows that there was no time
  for manipulation. Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence
  by the informant with all its vivid details gives an assurance
  regarding truth of its version. Allegations may not be an after-
G thought or having a colourable version of the incidents. (See:
  Kishan Singh (dead) thr. Lrs. v. Gurpal Singh & Ors., AIR 2010
  SC 3624).

       It does not appeal to reasons as to why the witness would
H falsely enrope the appellants and other accused in such a
 RAKESH & ANR. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                     49
           [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
heinous crime and spare the real culprits to go scot-free. In the   A
FIR, Anil (PW.11) has disclosed that his father Khemchand
(PW.10), lshwar Nayak (PW.6) and Dharmendra (PW.12)
reached the place of occurrence at a later stage. As the
parties were known to each other being the residents of the
same village, the identify etc. was not in dispute.                 B

     17. The Trial Court had appreciated the evidence on
record, and reached the conclusion to the effect that Anil
(PW.11) was a trustworthy witness and had been an eye-
witness of the incident. He had faced grilling cross-
examination. However, no discrepancy or error could be shown        C
in spite of the fact that he was nephew of Kailash (deceased).
On careful scrutiny of his deposition, his statement was found
trustworthy.

     Tbe court further held that even if the other witnesses on     D
the spot had not supported the prosecution case, Anil (PW.11)
was a natural witness and had seen the incident. The other
circumstances particularly, the statements of B.M. Dubey,
Investigating Officer (PW.21) and Bairam (PW.9), the arrest of
accused, recovery of weapons on their disclosure statements         E
proved the prosecution case. The depositions of B.M. Dubey
(PW.21) had been natural. There was no proof that the 1.0.
(PW.21) had any animosity or any kind of interest and
closeness to the deceased. Therefore, the question of not
believing the statement of B.M. Dubey, 1.0. (PW.21) does not        F
arise. The High Court in spite of the fact of dis-believing
Khemchand (PW.10), found the prosecution case wholly proved
on the sole testimony o.f Anil (PW.11 ).
     18. There are concurrent findings of fact by the two courts
below. Unless the findings so recorded are found to be              G
perverse, this Court should not generally interfere. This "Court
cannot embark upon fruitless task of determining the issues
by re-appreciating the evidence." (See : Manju Ram Kalita v.
State of Assam, (2009) 13 SCC 330).
                                                                    H
    50       SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A        19. Even if there are minor discrepancies between the
  narrations of witnesses when they speak on details, unless such
  contradictions are of material dimensions, the same should not
  be used to discard the evidence in its entirety. The trivial
  discrepancy ought not to obliterate :i:e otner.v1se acceptable
B evidence.
        20. In Leela Ram (Dead) thr. Duli Chand v. State of
    Haryana & Anr., (1999) 9 SCC 525, this Court observed as
    under:

C        "The Court shall have to bear in mind that different
         witnesses react differently under different situations:
         whereas some become speechless, some start wailing
         while some others run away from the scene and yet there
         are some who may come forward with courage, conviction
D        and belief that the wrong should be remedied. As a matter
         of fact it depends upon individuals and individuals. There
         cannot be any set pattern or uniform rule of human reaction
         and to discard a piece of evidence on the ground of his
         reaction not falling within a set pattern is unproductive and
E        a pedantic exercise.•
         21. In view of the above, we reach the inescapable
  conclusion that the courts below reached the correct conclusion
  in accepting the prosecution case. Anil (PW.11) is a natural
  witness and his testimony inspired confidence and is, thus,
F worth acceptance.

         The facts and circumstances of the instant case do not
    warrant any interference by this Court. Appeal lacks merit and
    is, accordingly, dismissed.
G
    B.B.B.                                       Appeal dismissed.