Supreme Court of India
YOGESH SINGHversusMAHABEER SINGH & ORS.
- Citation
- 2016 INSC 978
- Decided
- 20 October 2016
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
Holding
The Supreme Court restored the conviction, ruling that the trial court correctly evaluated the evidence and that procedural lapses or minor inconsistencies do not invalidate the prosecution’s case.
Summary
Mohan Singh was murdered on 26 June 1982; his head was severed and the crime was witnessed by his daughter (a child) and his father. The trial court convicted six accused under Sections 302 and 149 of the IPC, but the Allahabad High Court later acquitted them, citing alleged delays in FIR dispatch, defects in the inquest report, and doubts about the credibility of the child and interested witnesses. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the delays and minor inconsistencies did not prejudice the prosecution, that the child’s testimony was properly corroborated, that medical evidence is only corroborative and does not outweigh oral evidence, and that the lack of a proven motive is immaterial where direct evidence establishes the crime. Consequently, the Court restored the trial court’s conviction and ordered the respondents to surrender.
Issues considered
- The effect of delay in forwarding the FIR to the magistrate on the reliability of the prosecution case.
- The significance of non‑recorded entries in the inquest report as a material defect.
- The credibility and evidentiary value of a child witness and of interested/inimical witnesses.
- The impact of minor contradictions or embellishments in prosecution evidence.
- The weight of medical evidence vis‑à‑vis oral eyewitness testimony.
- Whether the absence of a proven motive defeats a conviction.
- The applicability of the benefit‑of‑doubt principle in cases of conflicting evidence.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 157, s. 161, s. 174, s. 313
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 149, s. 302
Subjects
murderchild witnessbenefit of doubtdelay in FIRinquest reportmedical evidencecriminal procedureIPC 302IPC 149evidence evaluationacquittalappeal
Judgment
[2016] 7 S.C.R. 713
YOGESH SINGH A
v.
MAHABEER SINGH & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No.1482 of 2013)
OCTOBER 20, 2016 8
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
s. 302 rlw s.149 - Murder - Head severed from trunk- Incident
witnessed by daughter and also father of the deceased - Trial court c
convicted six persons - High Court acquitted the accused persons-
respondents - Appeal against acquittal by son of the deceased -
Held: It was not the case of the accused that they were prejudiced
by the alleged delay in dispatch of the FIR to the nearest Magistrate
competent to take cognizance of such offence - Non-recording of
D
certain relevant entries in the inquest report did not constitute a
material defect so grave to throw out the prosecution story and the
otherwise reliable testimonies ofprosecution witnesses that remained
uncontroverted - There was no major contradiction either in the
evidence of the witnesses or any conflict in medical or ocular
evidence which would tilt the balance in favour of the respondents E
- The minor improvements, embellishments etc., were insignificant
and ignored since the evidence of the witnesses otherwise
corroborated each other in material particulars - The view expressed
by High Court was not plausible one - Trial court had correctly
analyzed the material on record to arrive at its conclusion - Order
F
of conviction passed by trial court restored
Criminal Jurisprudence:
Burden to prove guilt - Held: The guilt of the accused must be
proved beyond all reasonable doubJs - However, the burden on the
prosecution is only to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt G
and not all doubts.
Two views - Held: If two views are possible 011 the evidence
adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and
the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the
accused should be adopted. H
713
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 7 S.C.R.
A Evidence:
Testimony of child witness - Evidentiary value of - Held:
Evidence of a child witness must be evaluated carefully" and with
greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed
by what others tell him and thus a child witness is an easy prey to
B tutoring.
Medical evidence - Evidentiary value of - Held: Is only
corroborative and not conclusive ...:. In case of a conflict between
oral evidence and medical evidence, the former is to be preferred
unless the medical evidence completely rules out the oral evidence.
c Testimony of related/interested witness - Evidentiary value of
- Held: Evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that
the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased - In case
the evidence has a ring of truth in it, is cogent, credible and
trustworthy, it can be relied upon.
D Minor contradictions in prosecution evidence - Effect on
prosecution case - Held: Minor contradictions, inconsistencies or
insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution
case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution
evidence - The omission should create a serious doubt about the
E truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness - It is only the serious
contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of
the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission.
Delay/Laches:
Delay in examination of prosecution witness/child witnesses
F - Effect of- Held: The trial court observed that child witness (PW5)
was cross-examined on practically every detail of the prosecution
story and her statement corroborated every part thereof - It was
rightly observed by the Trial Judge that the delay was on account
of the fact that the Investigating Officer wanted to assure himself of
the veracity of her statement and hence, she was examined after
G
she had time to recover from the shock of the incident and compose
herself - Under these circumstances, any delay in examining this
witness uls. 161 of Cr.P.C. will not prejudice the_pTosecution - Code -
·of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.161.
Delay in sending FIR to Magistrate - Held: Although in terms
H
YOGESH SINGH v. MAHABEER SINGH & ORS. 715
of s.J 57 Cr:P.C., the police officer concerned is required to forward A
a copy of the FIR to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance
of such offence, promptly and without undue delay, it cannot be
laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever there is
some delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate, the prosecution
version becomes unreliable and the trial stands vitiated - When
B
there is posiii"'le evidence to the fact that the FIR was recorded without
unreasonable delay and investigation started on the basis of that
FIR and there is no other infirmity brought to the notice of the Court,
then in the absence of any prejudice to the accused, it cannot be
concluded that the investigation was tainted and the prosecution
story rendered unsupportable - Code of Criminal Procedure, I 973 c
- s.157.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence
that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable
doubts. However, the burden on the prosecution is only to D
establish its case beyond all re"son"ble doubt and not "//doubts.
JJ?ara 1~1 (729-CJ
Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Prakash
1972 (2) SCR 765: (1972) 1 SCC 249; Ganga Kumar
Srivastava v. State of Bihar (2005) 6 SCC 211 - relied E
on.
1.2 If two views are possible on the evidence adduced in
the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to
his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should
be adopted. However, the rule regarding the benefit of doubt F
does not warrant acquittal of the accused by resorting to surmises,
conjectures or fanciful considerations. (Paras 16, 17] (730-B, D]
State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal and Am: 1988 (2) Suppl.
SCR 391: (1988) 4 SCC 302; Krishnan 1-: State (2003)
7 SCC 56:2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 771: Va/son and Anr. v. G
State of Kera/a (2008) 12 SCC 24: Bhaskar Ramappa
Madt>r and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2009) 11 SCC
690 : 2009 (5) SCR 256; Kali Ram v. State of Himachal
Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 808:1974 (1) SCR 722; State of
Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180 : 2003 (2) H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 7 S.C.R.
A Suppl. SCR 445; Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of
Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415: 2007 (2) SCR 630;
Upendra Pradhan v. State of Orissa (2015) 11 SCC
124:2015 (5) SCR 214; Go/bar Hussain & Ors. v. State
of Assam and Anr. (2015) 11 SCC 242:2015 (5) SCR
525; State of Punjab v. Jaf{ir SinKh (1974) 3 SCC
B
277:1974 (1) SCR 328; Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade &
Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793:1974
(1) SCR 489 - relied on.
1.3. It is well-settled that the evidence of a child witness
must find adequate corroboration, before it is relied upon as the
c rule of corroboration is of practical wisdom than of law. However,
it is not the law that if a witness is a child, his evidence shall be
rejected, even if it is a found reliable.[Paras 22, 23][731-G; 732-B]
Praka.sh v. State of M.P. (1992) 4 SCC 225; Baby
Kandayanathi v. State of Kera/a 1993 Supp (3) SCC
D 667; Raja Rum Yaduv v. State of Bihar (1996) 9 SCC
287: 1996 (1) Suppl. SCR 174; Dattu Ramrao Sakhare
v. State of Maharashtra (1997) 5 SCC 341; State of
U.P. v. Ashok Dixit & Anr. (2000) 3 SCC 70 : 2000 (1)
SCR 855; Suryanarayana v. State Of Karnataka (2001)
E 9 SCC 129 : 2001 (1) SCR 1; Panchhi v. State of U.P.,
(1998) 7 SCC 177 : 1998 (1) Suppl. SCR 40 - relied
on.
1.4. The evidence of a closely related witnesses is required
to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before any conclusion
F is made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a given
case. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the
ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the
deceased. [Para 28) [733-F-G]
Dalip SinKh v. State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC 364 : 1954
G
SCR 145; Piara Singh and Ors. " State of Punjab AIR
1977 SC 2274 : (1977) 4 sec 452:1978 (1) SCR 597;
Hari Obula Reddy and Ors. v. The State of Andhra
Pradesh (1981) 3 SCC 675; Ramashish Rai v. Jagdish
Singh (2005) 10 SCC 498; Anil Rai v. State of Bihar
(2001) 7 SCC 318: 2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 298; State of
H U.P. v. Jagdeo Singh (2003) 1 SCC 456; Bhagalool
YOGESH SINGH v. MAHABEER SINGH & ORS. 717
Lodh & Am: v. State of U.P. (2011) 13 SCC 206 : 2011 A
(6) SCR 1037; Dahari & Ors. v. State of U. P. (2012)
,.lo sec 256 : 2012 (8) SCR 1219; Raju @
Ba/achandran & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 12
SCC 701 : 2012 (11) SCR 109; Gangabhavani v.
Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors. (2013) 15 SCC 298 :
B
2013 (14) SCR 155; Jodhan v. State of MP. (2015) 11
SCC 52 : 2015 (4) SCR 789 - relied on.
1.5. It is well settled in law that the minor discrepancies
are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be
considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test is
whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the Court.
c
If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test
of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version.
If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and
ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such
inconsistencies. Every omission cannot take place of a material D
omission and, therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies
or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the
prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject
the prosecution evidence. [Para 29) [734-B-D]
Rammi @ Rameshwar v. State of MP. (1999) 8 SCC E
649: l999 (3) Suppl. SCR 1; Leela Ram (dead) throul{h
Duli Chand v. State of Haryana and Another (1999) 9
SCC 5~ :· 1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 435; Bihari Nath
Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh & Ors. (2004) 9 SCC
186 : 2004 (2) SCR 623; Vijay @ Chinee v. State of
Madhya Pradesh (2010) 8 SCC 191 : 2010 (8) SCR . F
1150; Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of _Police,
Krishnagiri (2012) 4 SCC 124 ~ 2012 (2) SCR 289;
Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal (2012) 7 SCC
646 ·: 2012 (10) SCR 95; Mritunjoy Biswas v. Pranab
@ Kuti Biswas and Anr. (2013) 12 SCC 796 : 2013 (7) G
SCR 1105 - relied on.
2.1. PWl and PW5 stated under oath that on the fateful day,
the deceased and PW5 were going to another village via th~ir
village house. The High Court noted .that there was no reason
for the deceased to go through the fields of the accused since H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 7 S.C.R.
A there was a straight pathway for accessing the village from the
tube-well and that the animosity between the informant and the
accused persons was so deep that they had put restriction upon
themselves not to trespass or pass through the fields of their
opponents. This observation of the High Court is not accepted
as well in the light of the categorical finding by the trial court that
B
along the north also there were fields of the very same accused,
meaning thereby that in either case the deceased while going
from his tube-well to his house in the village, would necessarily
have to pass through the fields of the accused. (Paras 31, 32)
(735-E-H)
c 2.2. The trial court observed that child witness (PW5) was
cross-examined on practically every detail of the prosecution
story and her statement corroborated every part thereof.
Moreover, the delay in recording of the statement of PW5 was
not unexplained. It was rightly observed by the Trial Judge that
D the delay was on account of the fact that the Investigating Officer
wanted to assure himself of the veracity of her statement and
hence, she was examined after she had time to recover from the
shock of the incident and compose herself. Under these
circumstances, any delay in examining this witness under Section
161 of Cr.P.C. will not prejudice the prosecution. (Para 34) (736-
E H; 737-A-B)
C. Muniappan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010)
9 SCC 567:2010 (10) SCR 262 - relied on.
State of U.P. v. Ashok Dixit and Anr. (2000) 3 SCC 70 :
2000 (1) SCR 855; Vijaybhai Bhanabhai Patel v.
F
Navnitbhai Patel & Ors. (2004) 10 SCC 583; Jagjit
Singh @ Jagga v. State of Punjab (2005) 3 SCC 689 :
2005 (1) SCR 559; Vijaybhai Bhanabhai Patel v.
Navnitbhai Patel & Ors. (2004) 10 SCC 583; State of
U.P. v. Ashok Dixit and Anr. (2000) 3 SCC 70 : 2000
G (1) SCR 855; Jagjit Singh @ Jagga v. State of Punjab
(2005) 3 sec 689 - held inapplicable.
3. Although in terms of Section 157 Cr.P.C., the police officer
· concerned is required to forward a copy of the FIR to the
Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence,
H. promptly and without 'undue delay, it cannot be laid down as a
YOGESH SINGH v. MAHABEER SINGH & ORS. 719
rule of universal application that whenever there is some delay A
in sending the FIR to the Magistrate, the prosecution version
becomes unreliable and the trial stands vitiated. When there is
positive evidence to the fact that the FIR was recorded wi~hout
unreasonable delay and investigation started on the basis of that
FIR and there is no other infirmity brought to the notice of the
B
Court, then in the absence of any prejudice to the accused, ft
cannot be concluded that the investigation was tainted and the
prosecution story rendered ·unsupportable. (Para 40) (739-C-D]
. 4. It is well-established that inquest report is not a
.substantive piece of evidence and can only be looked into for
testing tt,e veracity of the witnesses of inquest. The object of c
preparin~ such report is merely to ascertain the apparent cause
of death, ~amely, whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or
caused by animals or machinery etc. and stating in what manner,
or by what weapon or instrument, the injuries on the body appear
to have been inflicted. In the present case, it is not the case of D
the accused that they have been prejudiced by the alleged delay
· in dispatch of the FIR to the nearest Magistrate competent to
take cognizance of such offence. Moreover, the no.n-recording of
certain relevant entries in the inquest report do not constitute a
material defect so grave to throw out the prosecution story and
the otherwise reliable testimonies of prosecution witnesses that E
have mostly remained uncontroverted. There is no reason to
interfere with the judgments of the courts below on this ground.
In any event, the evidentiary value of medical evidence is only
corroborative and not conclusive and, hence, in case of a conflict
between oral evidence and medical evidence, the former is to be F
preferred unless the medical evi~ence completely rules out. the
oral evidence. (Paras 41,_ 42, 43) (739-F-G; 740-B-C, E)
Leela Ram v. State of Haryana (1999) 9 SCC 525; Subal
Ghorai and Ors. v. State of West Bengal (2013) 4 SCC
607; Pala Singh v. State of Punjab, (1972) 2 SCC 640
G
: 1973 (1) SCR 964; Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab
(1976) 4 SCC 369; Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2001) 7
SCC 318:2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 298; Munshi Prasad &
Ors. v. State of Bihar (2002) 1 SCC 351: 2001 (4)
Suppl. SCR 25; Aqeel Ahmad v. State of U.P. (2008)
16 SCC 372: 2008 (17) SCR 1330~ Dharamveer v. H
720 SUPREME COUR'{ REPORTS [2016) 7 $.C.R.
A State of U.P. (2010) 4 SCC 469 : 2010 (3) SCR 162;
Sandeep v. State of U.P., (2012) 6 SCC 107: 2012 (5)
SCR 952; Pedda Narayan v. State of A.P. (1975) 4 SCC
153 : 1975 Suppl. SCR 84; Khl!iii v. State qf MP. (1991)
3 SCC 627 : 1991 (3) SCR 1; Ku/dip Sinf!.h v. State qf
Punjab 1992 Supp (3) SCC 1; Georf!.e and Ors. v. State
B
of Kera/a and Anr. (2008) 4 SCC 605; Suresh Rai v.
State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 84: 2000 (2) SCR 796;
Amar Singh v. Ba/winder Singh (2003) 2 SCC 518:2003
(1) SCR 754; Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P.,
(2006) 2 SCC 450:2006 (1) SCR 519; Sambhu Das v.
c State ofAssam, (2010) 10 SCC 374:2010 (11) SCR 493;
Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat (1983)
2 SCC 174; Mani Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1993 Supp
(3) SCC 18 : 1993 (2) SCR 852; State qf U.P. v. Krishna
· Gopal & Anr., State of Haryana v. Bhagirath (1999) 5
SCC 96 : 1999 (3) SCR 529; Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai
D
Nayak v. State of Gujarat (2003) 5 SCC 223; Thaman .
Kumar v. State of U. T. of Chandigarh (2003) 6 SCC
380 : 2003 (3) SCR 1190; Krishnan " State, (2003) 7
SCC 56 : 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 771; Khambam Raja
Reddy & Am: v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.
E (2006) 11 SCC 239 : 2006 (6) Suppl. SCR 446; State
of U.P. v. Dinesh (2009) 11 SCC 566 : 2009 (2) SCR
1175; State qf U.P. v. Hari Chand (2009) 13 SCC
542:2009 (7) SCR 149; Abdul Sayeed v. State of MP.
(2010) 10 SCC 259: 2010 (13) SCR 311; Bhajan Singh
@Harbhajan Singh & Ors. v. State (2011) 7 SCC 421
F : 2011 (7) SCR l - relied on. ~
5. There was no major contradiction either in the evidence
of the witnesses or any conflict in medical or ocular evidence
which would tilt the balance in favour of the respondents. The
minor improvements, embellishments etc., apart from being far ·
G · yield of human faculties are insignificant and ought to be ignored
since the evidence of the witnesses otherwise overwhelmingly
corroborate each other in material particulars. [Para 44) (740-H;
741-A-BJ
6. The trial court found that there was sufficient motive with
H the accusetl persons to commit the murder of the dec~ased since
YOGESH SINGH v. MAHABEER SINGH & ORS. 721
the deceased had defeated accused in the Pradhan elections, thus A
putting an end to his position as Pradhan for the last 28-30 years..
The long nursed feeling of hatred and the simmering enmity
between the family of the deceased and the accused persons most
likely manifested itself in the outburst of anger resulting in the
murder of the deceased. It is a settled legal proposition that even
B
if the absence of motive, as alleged, is accepted that is of no
consequence and pales into insignificance when direct evidence
establishes the crime. Therefore, in case there is direct
trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to commission of an offence,
motive loses its significance. Therefore, if the genesis of the
motive of the occurrence is not proved, the ocular testimony of c
the witnesses as to the occurrence could not be discarded only
on the ground of absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence is
worthy of reliance. The view expressed by the High Court, is
not a plausible one. On the other hand, the trial court has correctly
analyzed the material on record in the factual as well as legal
D
perspectives to arrive at its conclusion. (Paras 46, 55) (741-F-H;
742-A-B; 744-H; 745-A)
Hari Shankar v. State o/U.P. (1996) 9 SCC 40 : 1996
(2) Snppl. SCR 348; Bikau Pandey &'Ors. v. State of
Bihar (2003) 12 SCC 616 : 2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 201;
State of U.P. v. Kishanpal & Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 73 : E
2008 (11) SCR 1048; Abu Thakir & Ors. v. State of
Tamil Nadu (2010) 5 SCC 91 : 2010 (4) SCR 794; Bipin
Kumar Monda/ v. State of West Bengal (2010) 12 SCC
91:2010 (8) SCR 1036; Lakahan Sao v. State of Bihar
and Am: (2000) 9 SCC 82; State of Rajasthan v. Arjun F
Singh & Ors., (2011) 9 SCC 115 : 2011 (10) SCR 823;
Manjit Singh and Am: v. State of Punjab (2013) 12 SCC
746:2013 (11) SCR 107; Raj Kumar Singh@ Raju@
Batya v. State of Rajasthan (2013) 5 SCC 722; Nar
Singh v. State of Haryana (2015) 1 SCC 496 : 2014
(12) SCR 218; Darya Singh v. State of Punjab AIR G
1965 SC 328 : 1964(7) SCR 397; Raghubir Singh v.
State of U.P. (1972) 3 SCC 79; Appabhai and Anr. v.
State of Gujarat, 1988 Supp (l) SCC 241; Prithvi v.
Mam Raj (2004) 13 sec 279: 2004 (2) SCR 530 -
relied on. H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 7 S.C.R.
A Case Law Reference
1972 (Z) SCR 765 relied on Para 13
c200~) 6 sec 211 relied on Para 14
1988 (2) Suppl. SCR 391 relied on Para 15
B 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 771 relied on Para 15
(20010 12 sec 24 relied on Para 15
2009 (~) SCR 256 relied on Para 15
1974 n) SCR 722 relied on Para 16
c 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 445 relied on Para 16
2007· (2) SCR 630 relied on Para 16
2015 (5) SCR 214 relied on Para 16
2015 (5) SCR 525 relied on Para 16
'D
1974 V> SCR 328 relied on Para 17
1974.(1) SCR 489 relied on Para 18
)
(1992) 4 sec 225 relied on Para22
1993 Supp (3) sec 667 relied on Para22
E
1996 (1) Suppl. SCR 174 relied on Para22
1997) 5 sec 341 relied on Para22
2000 (1) SCR 855 relied on Para22
F 2001 (1) SCR 1 . relied on Para22
1998 (1) Suppl. SCR 40 relied on Para23
1954 SCR 145 relied on Para24
.1?78 (1) SCR 597 relied on Para25
G (198~) 3 sec 675 relied on . Para 26
c2005) 10 sec 498 relied on Para27
2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 298 relied on Para28
c200~> 1. sec 456 relied on Para28
H 2!Hl (6) SCR 1037 relied on Para28
YOGESH SINGH v. MAHABEER SINGH & ORS. 723
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 7 S.C.R.
A 2012 (5) SCR 952 relied on Para 40
1975 Suppl. SCR 84 relied on Para 41
1991 (3) SCR 1 relied on Para 41
1992 Supp (3) sec 1 relied on. Para 41
B c2ooio 4 sec 605 relied on Para 41
~!JOO (2) SCR 796 relied on Para 41
2003 (1) SCR 754 relied on Para 41
2006 (1) SCR 519 relied on Para 41
c 20~0 (11) SCR 493 relied on Para 41
(198~) 2 sec 114 relied on Para 43
1993 (Z) SCR 852 relied on Para 43
1999 (3) SCR 529 relied on Para43
D
(2003) 5 sec 223 relied on Para 43
2!)03 (3) SCR 1190 relied on Para43
2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 771 relied on Para43
2006 (6) Suppl. SCR 446 relied on Para43
E
2009 (2) SCR 1175 relied on Para43
2009 (7) SCR 149 relied on Para 43
2010 (13) SCR 311 relied on Para43
F _2011 (7) SCR 1 relied on Para 43
1996 (2) Suppl. SCR 348 relied on Para46
2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 201 relied on Para 46
2008 (11 ) SCR 1048 relied on Para 46
G 2010 (4 ) SCR 794 relied on Para46
2010 (8 ) SCR 1036 relied on Para 46
c2000) 9 sec 82 relied on Para 47
20,1 .(10) SCR 823 relied on Para 47
H
YOGESH SINGH v. MAHABEER SINGH & ORS. 725
2013 (11) SCR 107 relied on Para 47 A
c2913) 5 sec 122 relied on Para 48
2014 (12) SCR 218 relied on Para49
19~~ (7) SCR 397 relied on Para50
(1972) 3 sec 79 relied on Para 51 B
. 1988 Supp (1) sec 241 relied on Para52
20Q~ (2) SCR 530 relied on Para 53
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1482 of2013. C
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2012 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1734of1983.
Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, Sr. Adv., Aditya Singh, Rajiv Dalal,
Advs. for the Appellant.
D
Nagender Rai, P. S. Dutta, Sr. Advs., P. N. Gupta, Dr. (Mrs.)
Vi pin Gupta, C. D. Singh, Ms. SyIona Mahapatra, Manoj Kumar, Advs.
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. I. This appeal is directed E
against the judgment and order dated 17'h February, 2012 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.1734 of
1983, whereby the High Court acquitted the accused persons -
respondents herein of the charges under Section 302 read with Section
149 of the Indian Penal Code. F
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.06.1982 at about 8.00
A.M., the deceased Mohan Singh, who was a resident of Village Garh
Umrao, Tehsil Sadabad, District Mathura, U.P., after taking bath at the
tube-well, was going to his house along with his minor daughter La.ijawati
(PW-5). He was carrying his single barrel gun and the strip of C(artridges
G
with him. The respondents Phal Singh and Mahabir Singh, along with
other accused Om Prakash and Gopi Chand, were clearing the irrigation
channel of their field; whereas respondents Raj Pal and Satya Pal were
scrapping grass in their respective fields. Jaipal Singh and Om Prakash
were engaged in plucking the Moong Pods from the field. When deceased
H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 7 S.C.R.
A Mohan Singh reached the ridge of the field of Om Prakash and Gopi
Chand, Phal Singh and Jaipal Singh caught him by his hands whereas
respondent Om Prakash came from behind, put his arm around him and
put him down on the ground. In the meantime, other accused persons
also reached there. Then the accused Jaipal and Om Prakash caught
hands of the deceased and accused Rajpal and Satyapal caught the legs
B
ofthe deceased. Rajpal hit the deceased with a Ballam. Accused Mahabir
Singh and Phal Singh severed the head of the deceased Mohan Singh by
hitting him with Phawara (Spade).
3. At the time of the incident, Kalyan Singh (PW- I), who is the
father of deceased Mohan Singh, and Bani Singh (PW-2) were sitting at
c the tube well of Bani Singh situated at a distance of around 150 yards
from the place of incident. On hearing the cries of deceased Mohan
Singh and Laijawati (PW-5), the aforesaid witnesses rushed to the place
of incident. In the meantime, accused Harcharan also arrived at the
place ofincident carrying his gun. In order to dissuade Kalyan Singh and
D Bani Singh, the accused respondents Phal Singh and Harcharan fired in
the air. Then the accused persons tried to take away the body of deceased
Mohan Singh by dragging it for some distance. But due to the hue and
cry raised by the eye-witnesses, the accused fled away from the place
of incident. Thereafter, Kalyan Singh (PW- I) went to Police Station
Sadabad with a written complaint of the incident, on the basis of which
E an FIR of the incident was lodged on the same day at around 11.00
A.M. and Case Crime No.139of1982 was registered.
4. Thereafter, investigation started and police sent the dead body
ofMohan Singh for post-mortem, prepared Site Map of the place of the
incident, and collected blood-stained soil and clothes of the deceased. In
F the evening, accused Harcharan was arrested and on the information
given by him, a blood-stained Phawara (Spade) was recovered. All the
articles recovered were sent for chemical examination.
5. Dr. K.C. Jain (PW-4) conduced the post-mortem examination
of deceased Mohan Singh which disclosed that there were three ante
G mortem injuries present on the corpse of Mohan Singh; head was severed
from the body; and there was fracture on 61h and 7m vertebra. The
doctor opined that the death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage
due to above stated injuries.
6. After the investigation was complete, seven persons, namely,
H
YOGESH SINGH v. MAHABEER SINGH & ORS. 727
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.J
Mahabir Singh, Phal Singh, Jaipal Singh, Om Prakash, Raj Pal, Satya A
Pal and Har Charan were challaned by the police and charge-sheet was
submitted in Court. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, it was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge,
Mathura. Thereafter, charges were framed against all the accused persons
vide order dated 16.12.1982, they were tried for the respective offences
B
and after hearing the counsel for the prosecution and also the counsel
for the accused, the learned Sessions Judge vide his order dated
26.07.1983, convicted six accused persons (respondents Nos. I to 6 herein)
for committing the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149
IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
life. TheywerealsoconvictedseverallyunderSections 147, 148 &379 c
oflPC. The accused Har Charan was not found guilty of the offences
punishable under Section 148 or Section 302/149 ofIPC and hence he
was acquitted.
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Mathura, the accused respondents preferred an D
appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C., before the High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad. The Allahabad High Court by its judgment dated 17.02.2012
passed in Criminal Appeal No.1734of1983, allowed the appeal filed by
the accused respondents and acquitted them ofthe charges under Section
302 read with Section 149 of WC. Hence, this appeal, by special leave,
is filed before this Court by the son of the deceased challenging the E
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court.
8. Respondent No.4 herein having died on I0.12.2012, as supported
by the Death Certificate filed in this Court, this appeal abates as against
respondent No.4.
F
9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
as also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents accused and
perused the oral and documentary evidence on record.
10. The Trial Court convicted the accused relying upon the
successful establishment of the following facts by the prosecution: G
(a) the murder of the deceased vide Exh. Ka 7 (Panchnama),
Exh. Ka 3 (post-mortem examination report) and the recovery
of the head of the deceased that had been severed from the
trunk;
H
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 7 S.C.R.
A (b) the place of occurrence vide recovery of personal articles of
the deceased from the alleged place of occurrence as also
blood stained earth from a pool of blood found at the alleged
place of occurrence and the corresponding report of the
Chemical Examiner and Serologist certifying it to be human
blood;
B
(c) motive for the commission of the offence;
(d) the time and manner of occurrence of the incident from the
evidence of PW!, PW2 and PW 5 (eye witnesses) was not
only credible but co1Toborated by each other and in tum stood
c corroborated by the medical evidence.
11. On the other hand, the High Court found that the prosecution
story was not reliable since the eye-witnesses were interested and other
witnesses were inimical and had the motive to falsely implicate the
accused persons. Further, their presence at the scene of occurrence at
D the time of the incident was also doubted. It was further found that the
aforesaid prosecution witnesses not only made false statements on the
most material parts of the prosecution case, but were even otherwise
not acceptable to a reasonable person. Moreover, the testimony of the
formal witnesses was also found to be not trustworthy on account of
serious lapses in recording of evidence, holding ofinquest and dispatching
E of FJR to the nearest Magistrate leading to an inference as to its
antedating. Resultantly, the accused persons were acquitted by the High
Court.
12. Before proceeding with an analysis of the various contentions
raised by the parties or expressing opinion on the appreciation and findings
F of fact and law recorded by the courts below, we wish to reiterate the
scope of interference by this Court in a criminal appeal against acquittal
under Article 136 of the Constitution oflndia.
13. In Himachal Pradesh Administration Vs. Shri Om Prakash,
(1972) I SCC 249, it was held by this Court as follows:
G
"Jn appeals against acquittal by special leave under Article
136, this Court has undoubted power to interfere with the
findings of the fact, no distinction being made between
judgments of acquittal and conviction though in the case of
acquittals it will not be ordinarily interfere with the
H
YOGESH SINGH v. MAHABEER SrNGH & ORS. 729
[PrNAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.)
appreciation of evidence or on findings of fact unless the A
High Court "acts perversely or otherwise improperly."
14. Further, in Ganga Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of Bihar,
(2005) 6 sec 211, this Court a~ded one more ground, namely, where
the appreciation of evidence and finding is vitiated by any error oflaw of
procedure or found contrary to the principles of natural justice, errors of B
record and misreading of the evidence.
15. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt
of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. However,
the burden on the prosecution is only to establish its case beyond all
reasonable doubt and not all doubts. Here, it is worthwhile to reproduce c
the observations made by Venkatachaliah, J., in State ofU.P. Vs. Krishna
Go pal and Anr., ( 1988) 4 SCC 302:
"25 .... Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free
from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford
any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, D
it must be free from an overemotional response. Doubts
must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the
accused person arising from the evidence, or from the lack
of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable
doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt;
but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It E
must grow out of the evidence in the case.
26. The concept of probability, and the degrees ofit, cannot
obviousiy be expressed in terms of units to be
mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units
constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an F
unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the
degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic
probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common
sense and, ultimately on the trained intuitions of the judge.
While the protection given by the criminal process to the G
accused persons is not to he eroded, at the same time,
uainformed legitimization of trivialities would make a
mockery ofadministration of criminal justice."
[See also Krishnan Vs. State, (2003) 7 SCC 56; Valson
H
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 7 S.C.R.
A and Anr. Vs. State of Kerala, (2008) 12 SCC 24 and
Bhaskar Ramappa Madar and Ors. Vs. State of
Karnataka, (2009) 11 SCC 690).
16. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the
administration ofjustice in criminal cases is that iftwo views are possible
B on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the
accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to
the accused should be adopted. [Vi de Kali Ram Vs. State ofHimachal
Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808; State ofRajasthan Vs. Raja Ram, (2003)
8 SCC 180; Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4
SCC 415; Upendra Pradhan Vs. State ofOrissa, (2015) 11 SCC 124
c and Golbar Hussain & Ors. Vs. State of Assam and Anr., (2015) 11
sec 242).
17. However, the rule regarding the benefit of doubt does not
warrant acquittal of the accused by resorting to surmises, conjectures or
fanciful considerations, as has been held by this Court in the case of
D State of Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh, ( 1974) 3 SCC 277:
"A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to
give flight to one's imagination and fantasy. It concerns
itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned
at the trial is guilty of the offence with which he is charged.
E Crime is an event in real life and is the product ofinterplay
of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion
about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission
of a crime, the court has to judge, the evidence by the
yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus
F of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have
to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every
reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts
should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex
facie trustworthy, on grounds which are fanciful or in the
nature of conjectures."
G
18. Similarly, in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of
Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793, V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., stated thus:
"The cherished principles or golden thread of proof beyond
reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law
H
YOGESH SINGH v. MAHABEER SINGH & ORS. 731
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, A
hesitancy and degree of doubt. The excessive solicitude
reflected in the attitude that a thousand guilty men may go
but one innocent martyr shall not suffer is a false dilemma.
Only reasonable doubts belong to the accused. Otherwise
any practical system of justice will then break down and
B
lose credibility with the community."
19. Keeping in mind the aforesaid position oflaw, we shall examine
the arguments advanced and the evidence adduced by the parties as
also the materials on record and see in view of the nature of offence
alleged to have been committed by the respondents whether the findings
of fact recorded by the High Court call for interference in the facts and c
circumstances of the case.
20. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
High Court has erred in rejecting the evidence of PWl, PW2 and PWS
as also the formal witnesses by placing undue emphasis on minor/trivial
issues not going to the root of the case. Per contra, the learned counsel D
for the respondents has supported the reasoning of the High Court and
has further sought to point out cracks in the prosecution story by alleging
absence of immediate motive, recovery of weapon being false and
fabricated, belated introduction ofstory of marriage, the factum ofwhich
could not be proved, non-production of independent witnesses, E
'incongruence between the medical evidence and prosecution story, non-
establishment ofballam injury, failure to put material questions regarding
marriage to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and finally the site
plan belying the prosecution claim.
21. For the sake of convenience, we shall first examine the general F
position of law on the various issues that found favour with the High
Court in recording the order of acquittal in favour of the accused and
then address the specific findings of fact and law by the High Court.
Testimony of Child Witnesses
22. It is well-settled that the evidence ofa child witness must find G
adequate corroboration, before it is relied upon as the rule of corroboration
is of practical wisdom than of law. (See Prakash Vs. State of M.P.,
(1992) 4 SCC 225; Baby Kandayanathi Vs. State of Kerala, 1993
Supp (3) SCC 667; Raja Ram Yadav Vs. State ofBihar, ( 1996) 9 SCC
H
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 7 S.C.R.
A 287; Datto Ramrao Sakhare Vs. State of Maharashtra, ( 1997) 5 SCC
341; State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Dixit & Anr., (2000) 3 SCC 70;
Suryanarayana Vs. State OfKarnataka, (2001) 9 SCC 129).
23. However, it is not the law that if a witness is a child, his evidence
shall be rejected, even ifit is a found reliable. The law is that evidence of
B a child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater
circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what
others tell him and thus a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring. [Vide
Panchhi Vs. State ofU.P., (1998) 7 SCC 177].
Testimony of Interested/Inimical Witnesses
c
24. On the issue ofappreciation of evidence ofinterested witnesses,
Dalip Singh Vs. State of PunJab, AIR 1953 SC 364 = 1954 SCR 145,
is one of the earliest cases on the point. In that case, it was held as
follows:
D "A witness is normally to be considered independent unless
he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted
and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such
as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him
falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen
the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It
E
is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause
for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent
person against whom a witness has a grudge along with
the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism
·and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation
F is often a sure guarantee of truth."
25. Similarly, ii1 Piara Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, AIR
1977 SC 2274 =(1977) 4 SCC 452, this Court held:
"It is we\1 settled that the evidence of interested or inimical
witnesses is to be scrutinised with care but cannot be
G rejected merely on the grou~d of being a partisan evidence.
If on a perusal of the evidence the Court is satisfied that
the evidence is creditworthy there is no bar in the Court
relying on the said evidence."
26. In Hari Obula Reddy and Ors. Vs. The State of Andhra
H
YOGESH SINGH v. MAHABEER SINGH & ORS. 733
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
Pradesh, (1981) 3 SCC 675, a three-judge Bench of this Court observed: A
" .. it is well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily
unreliable evidence. Even partisanship by itselfis not a valid
ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony. Nor
can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested
evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless B
corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by
independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the
evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to
careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such
scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically
reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient,
c
in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a
conviction thereon."
27.Again, in Ramashish Rai Vs. Ja2dish Sin2h, (2005) 10 SCC
498, the following observations were made by this Court:
D
"The requirement of Jaw is that the testimony of inimical
witnesses has to be considered with caution. If otherwise
the witnesses are true and reliable their testimony cannot
be thrown out on the threshold by branding them as inimical
witnesses. By now, it is well-settled principle of law that
enmity is a double-edged sword. It can be a ground for E
false implication. It also can be a ground for assault.
Therefore, a duty is cast upon the court to examine the
testimony of inimical witnesses with due caution and
diligence."
28. A survey of the judicial pronouncements of this Court onthis F
point leads to the inescapable conclusion that the evidence of a closely
related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated
before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the
convict/accused in a given case. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved
merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to
G
the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent,
credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon.
(See Anil Rai Vs. State ofBihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318; State ofU.P. Vs.
Jagdeo Singh; (2003) I SCC 456; Bhagalool Lodh & Anr. Vs. State
ofU.P., (2011) 13 SCC 206; Dahari & Ors. Vs. State ofU. P., (2012)
H
734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 7 S.C.R.
A 10 SCC 256; Raju@Balachandran & Ors.Vs. StateofTamilNadu,
(2012) 12 SCC 701; Gang11hhavani Vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy &
Ors., (2013) 15 SCC 298; Jodhan Vs. State of M.P., (2015) 11 SCC
52).
Discrepancies in Evidence
8 29. It is well settled in law that the minor discrepancies are not to
be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the
point of view of trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires
confidence in the mind of the Court. If the evidence is incredible and
cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in
the prosecution version. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root
c of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage
of such inconsistencies. It needs no special e11Jphasis to state that every
omission cannot take place of a material omission and, therefore, minor
contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect
the core of the prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground
D to reject the prosecution evidence. The omission should create a serious
doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is only
the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case
of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission. (See Rammi
@ Rameshwar Vs. State of M.P., (1999) 8 SCC 649; Leela Ram
(dead) through Duli Chand Vs. State ofHaryana and Another, (1999)
E 9 SCC 525; Bihari Nath Goswami Vs. Shiv Kumar Singh & Ors.,
(2004) 9 SCC 186; Vijay@ Chinee Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
(20 I 0) 8 SCC 191; Sam path Kumar Vs. Inspector of Police,
Krishnagiri, (2012) 4 SCC 124; Shyamal Ghosh Vs. State of West
Bengal, (2012) 7 SCC 646 and Mritunjoy Biswas Vs. Pranab@
F Kuti Biswas and Anr., (2013) 12 SCC-796).
iapses in Investigation
30. In C. Muniappan and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu,
(2010) 9 SCC 567, this Court explained the law on this point in the
following manner:
G "There· may be highly defective investigation in a case.
However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any
lapse by the IO and whether due to such lapse any benefit
should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is
well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself
H cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such
I
YOGESH SINGH v. MAHABEER SINGH & ORS. 735.
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or A
lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence
of the people in the criminal justice administration would be
eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of
the investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted
in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the
B
part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors
such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence
is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to
whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the
truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area
for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the c
trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the
probity of investigation."
31. In the present case, the High Court found that the testimonies
of the eye witnesses were not reliable. In this connection, the High Court
noted that the very claim of the witnesses that on the fateful day, the D
deceased and his daughter PWS, Lajjawati were going to their house
situated in the north of the village for any particular reason, did not carry
any weight in view of the fact that the deceased used to reside in his
self-contained shelter situated nearthe tube well which was far removed
from the Village and where he used to retire each day before sunset.
We are not inclined to endorse this finding of the High Court, particularly E
in light of the deposition of PWI and PWS, who stated under oath that
on the fateful day, the deceased and PWS were going to another village
via their village house.
32. The High Court also noted that there was no reason for the
deceased to go through the fretas of the accused since there was a F
straight pathway for accessing the village from the tube-well. Moreover,
the animosity between the informant and the accused persons was so
deep that they had put restriction upon themselves not to trespass or
pass through the fields of their opponents. We are not in agreement with
this observation of the High Court as well in the light of the categorical G
finding by the trial court that along the north also there were fields of the
very same accused, meaning thereby that in either case the deceased
while going from his tube-well to his house in the village, would necessarily
have to pass through the fields of the accused. It has also been submitted
by the counsel on behalf of the appellant that this was precisely the
H
. 736 SUPREME COl,JRT REPORTS [2016] 7 S.C.R.
A reason why the deceased used to retire to his separate citadel each day
before sunset and carry his gun and cartridge-strip with him.
33. As far as the evidence of PW5 .is concerned, the High Court
found that it was illogical that the dress of a child who was living with
her parents in a different establishment would be kept in the custody of
B someone else who was living elsewhere, particularly in the light of the
possessive attitude of children that urges them to cling to their most
precious belongings. In this regard, it has been submitted by the counsel
for the appellant that while the daily wears of PW5 were kept at the
tube-well, fancy clothes for occasions were kept at the village house.
Be that as it may, we are not inclined to agree with this reasoning of the
c High Court. Without attempting to indulge in any form of notional
psychoanalysis of the child witness (PW5), we wish to emphasize that
she was not subjected to any cross-examination on this point and hence
any form of conjecture on this point would be wholly improper on our
part. However, the learned counsel for the respondents have submitted
D that PWS was a tutored witness relying upon the fact that she had not
taken a bath before leaving the house with her father to purportedly
attend a marriage ceremony. We find that this contention is wholly ·
frivolous having no material bearing on the present case.
34. The learned counsel for the respondents has further sought to
E attack the testimony of this prosecution witness on the ground of delay
in recording of her statement by the Investigating Officer. In support of
this submission, learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of this
Court in State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Dixit and Anr., (2000) 3 SCC 70;
Vijaybhai Bhanabhai Patel Vs. Navnitbhai Patel & Ors., (2004) I 0
SCC 583; Jagjit Singh @Jagga Vs. State of Punjab, (2005) 3 SCC
F 689). However, we find that none of these cases help the case of the
respondents since Vijaybhai Bhanabhai Patel Vs. Navnitbhai Patel
& Ors., (2004) IO SCC 583, does not pertain to the case of a child
witness and in State of U.P. Vs. Asbok Dixit and Anr., (2000) 3 SCC
70, and Jagjit Singh@Jagga Vs. State of Punjab, (2005)3 SCC 689,
G delay in recording of evidence was not per se held to be fatal to the
prosecution case but the testimony of the child witness in each case was
found to be incredible on account of material contradictions and lack of
independent corroboration. We find that this is not the case here. In this
context, we may note that the Trial Court has observed that PW5 was
cross-examined on practically every detail of the prosecutirw ~tory and
H
YOGESH SINGH v. MAHABEER SINGH & ORS. 737
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
her statement corroborated every part thereof. Moreover, the delay in A
recording of the statement of PWS was not unexplained. It was rightly
observed by the learned Trial Judge that the delay was on account of the
fact that the Investigating Officer wanted to assure himself of the veracity
of her statement and hence, she was examined after she had time to
recover from the shock of the incident and compose herself. Under
B
these circumstances, any delay in examining this witness under Section
161 ofCr.P.C. will not prejudice the prosecution.
35. Further, the High Court opined that when the bicycle was
being kept regularly in the house of the deceased situated at the tube-well,
it was very difficult to accept the explanation for the deceased to go to c
his village house. The High Court noted that this was reinforced by the
fact that as per evidence of PWS, the brother-in-law of the deceased or
the maternal uncle of PWS, namely, Ghanshyam was not in the village in
the morning when the incident had occurred. However, we feel that
there appears to be some confusion on this point. According to the
versions of PWI and PW2, it was the brother-in-law ofRajvir (brother D
of the deceased), namely, Amar Singh who had visited the house of the
deceased and had taken the bicycle of the deceased on the night prior to
the date of the incident and that he was also present on the spot at the
time of the incident. Now, it is true that PWS had stated in her deposition
that "Mama" (maternal uncle) had taken the bicycle, it is quite probable E
that she meant to refer to Amar Singh and not Ghanshyam (her real
maternal uncle being the brother of her mother). Hence, there is no
conflict in the evidence of the eyewitnesses on this point.
36. A related contention raised on behalf of the respondents is that
'the story of marriage was introduced for the fil"$t time by the prosecution F
witnesses during trial and the same was not even !\roved. However, we
must note the observations of the learned Trial Judge which were to the
effect that the statements of the prosecution witnesses, under Section
162 Cr.P.C. were conspicuously silent on this part, thereby implying that
the Investigating Officer did not care to inquire about it during investigation.
Tl\us, in the light of the position of law examined above vis-a-vis effect G
oflapses in the investigation, we are not prepared to dispense with 'the
accusation merely on this point especially when the Trial Court concluded
that there was no material contradiction in the statements of PWl and
PWS.
H
738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 7 S.C.R.
A 37. Another reason for which the High Court disbelieved the
prosecution story is the improvement made by PW2 in the story of
beheading of the deceased. We find it difficult to agree with this
conclusion of the High Court in the light of the judgment of this Court in
Leela Ram Vs. State ofHaryana, (1999) 9 SCC 525, wherein it was
observed:
B
"It is indeed necessary to note that one hardly comes across
a witness whose evidence does not contain some
exaggeration or embellishment - sometimes there could
even be a deliberate attempt to offer embellishment and
sometimes in their over anxiety they may give a slightly
c exaggerated account. The court can sift the chaff from the
grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the
witnesses. Total repulsion of the evidence is unnecessary.
The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of
trustworthiness. Ifthis element is satisfied, it ought to inspire
D confidence in the mind of the court to accept the stated
evidence though not however in the absence of the same."
38. Similarly, in Subal Ghorai and Ors. Vs. State of West
Bengal, (2013) 4 SCC 607, this Court stated as follows:
"Experience shows that witnesses do exaggerate and this
E Court has taken note of such exaggeration made by the
witnesses and held that on account of embellishments,
evidence of witnesses need not be discarded if it is
corroborated on material aspects by the other evidence on
record."
F 39. It was further noted by the High Court that the special report
of the incident, that is, copy of the FIR had been received by the
Magistrate l Yz months after the incident. Moreover, there was no time
mentioned by PW8 in the relevant column as to when the inquest
proceedings were started nor was any date or time mentioned in the
G relevant column as to when the inquest proceeding ended allegedly at
the instruction of PW9, thus leading to an inference of antedating and
fabrication. We find that these observations of the High Court are not
supported by the evidence on record inasmuch as the DWI was himself
not sanguine as to the correct date of receipt of the FIR in the present
case. He simply stated that due to workload, the entry was made on
H
YOGESH SINGH v. MAHABEER SINGH & ORS. 739
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
10.08.1982. Further, PW8 had stated in his deposition that PW9 must A
have spoken about the date and time of starting the Panchnama to be
recorded in the relevant column but he could not be certain in view of
loud noise at the place of the incident at the relevant time. In any event,
in the light of the position of law examined above and the observation of
the Trial Court that these merely show remissness on part of the
B
investigating officer and should nofbe treated as fatal to the prosecution
case, we are not inclined to disbelieve the prosecution story.
40. It has been consistently held by this Court through a catena of
judicial decisions that although in terms of Section 157 Cr.P.C., the police
officer concerned is required to forward a copy of the FIR to the
Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence, promptly
c
and without undue delay, it cannot be laid down as a rule of universal
application that whenever there is some delay in sending the FIR to the
Magistrate, the prosecution version becom~s unreliable and the trial stands
vitiated. When there is positive evidence to the fact that the FIR was
recorded without unreasonable delay and investigation started on the D
basis of that FIR and there is no other infirmity brought to the notice of
the Court, then in the absence of any prejudice to the accused, it cannot
be concluded that the investigation was tainted and the prosecution story
rendered unsupportable. [See Pala Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1972)
2 SCC 640; Sarwan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 369;
Anil Rai Vs. State ofBihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318; Munshi Prasad & E
Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, (2002) I SCC 35 I; Aqeel Ahmad Vs. State
ofU.P., (2008) 16 SCC 372; Dharamveer Vs. State ofU.P., (2010) 4
SCC 469; Sandeep Vs. State ofU.P., (2012) 6 SCC 107].
41. Further, the evidentiary value of the inquest report prepared
under Section 174 ofCr.P.C. has also been long settled through a series
ofjudicial pronouncements ofthis Court. It is well-established that inquest
report is not a substantive piece of evidence and cah only be looked into
for testing the veracity of the witnesses of inquest. The object of preparing
such report is merely to ascertain the apparent cause of death, namely,
whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or caused by animals or G
11'achinery etc. and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or
instrument, the injuries on the body appear to have been inflicted. [See
Pedda Narayan Vs. State of A.P., (1975) 4 SCC 153; Khujji Vs.
State ofM.P., (1991) 3 SCC 627; Kuldip Singh Vs. State of Punjab,
1992 Supp (3) SCC I; George and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and
H
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 7 S.C.R.
A Anr., (2008) 4 SCC 605; Suresh Rai Vs. State ofBihar, (2000) 4 SCC
84; Amar Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 518; Radha
Mohan Singh Vs. State ofU.P., (2006) 2 SCC 450; Sambhu Das Vs.
State of Assam, (2010) IO SCC 3741.
42. In the present case, it is not the case of the accused that they
B have been prejudiced by the alleged delay in dispatch of the FIR to the
nearest Magistrate competent to take cognizance of such offence.
Moreover, in our opinion, the non-recording of certain relevant entries in
the inquest report do not constitute a material defect so grave to throw
out the prosecution story and the otherwise reliable testimonies of
prosecution witnesses that have mostly remained uncontroverted.
c
43. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has then
tried to create a dent in the prosecution story by pointing out
inconsistencies between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence.
However, we are not persuaded with this submission since both the
Courts below have categorically ruled that the medical evide1we was
D consistent with the ocular evidence and we can safely say that to that
extent, it corroborated the direct evidence proffered by the eye-witne$ses.
We hold that there is no material discrepancy in the medical and ocular
evidence and there is no reason to interfere with the judgments of the
Courts below on this ground. In any event, it has been consistently held
E by this Court that the evidentiary value of medical evidence is only
corroborative and not conclusive and, hence, in case of a conflict between
oral evidence and medical evidence, the former is to be preferred unless
the medical evidence completely rules out the oral evidence. [See Solanki
Chimanbhai Ukabhai Vs. StateofGujarat, (1983)2 SCC 174; Mani
Ram Vs. State ofRa,jasthan, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 18; State ofU.P.
F Vs. Krishna Gopal & Anr., State ofHaryana Vs. Bhagirath, (1999)
S SCC 96; Dhirajbhai GorakhbhaiNayak Vs. State of Gujarat, (2003)
5 SCC 223; Thaman Kumar Vs. State ofU.T. of Chandigarh, (2003)
6 SCC 380; Krishnan Vs. State, (2003) 7 SCC 56; Khambam Raja
Reddy & Anr. Vs. Public Prosecutor; High Court of A.P., (2006)
G 11 SCC 239; State of u;P. Vs. Dinesh, (2009) 11 SCC 566; State of
U.P. Vs. Bari Chand, (2009) 13 SCC 542; Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of
M.P., (2010) JO SCC 259 and Bhajan Singh@Harbhajan Singh &
Ors. Vs. State, 2011) 7 SCC 421].
44. In the present case, we do not find any major contradiction
H either in the evidence of the witnesses or any conflict in medical or
YOGESH SINGH v. MAHABEER SINGH & ORS. 741
[PlNAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.)
ocular evidence which would tilt the balance in favour of the respondents. A
The minor improvements, embellishments etc., apart from being far yield
of human faculties are insignificant and ought to be ignored since the
evidence of the witnesses otherwise overwhelmingly corroborate each
other in material particulars.
45. The High Court has also noted that the deceased was a person B
with crirninal antecedents and had fired at many persons, including one
Bashira, and hence could have been targeted and killed by any of his
enemies. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
that the High Court has erred on this point since there was no such
evidence brought on record and merely certain suggestions were made
to PWl regarding this fact during his cross-examination, which were c
denied. Moreover, it was also submitted that in the statement of the
accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they have stated that the
deceased was a police mukhbir (informant) and not that he had criminal
antecedents. Be that as it may, we would like to refrain from any form
of conjecture on this point. In the present case, the prosecution has not D
sought to prove its claim on the basis of circumstantial evidence which
as a rule needs to be conclusive, excluding any possible hypothesis of
innocence of the accused. In the present case, it is not incumbent on the
prosecution to discharge such burden to rule out every possible hypothesis
inconsistent with the guilt of the accused or consistent with the guilt of
any other person. E
46. It has next been contended by the learned counsel for the
respondents that there was no immediate motive with the respondents
to commit the murder of the deceased. However, the Trial Court found
that there was sufficient motive with the accused persons to commit the
murder of the deceased since the deceased had defeated accused F
Harcharan in the Pradhan elections, thus putting an end to his position as
Pradhan for the last 28-30 years. The long nursed feeling of hatred and
the simmering enmity between the family ofthe deceased and the accused
persons most likely manifested itselfin the outburst of anger resulting in
the murder of the deceased. We are not required to express any opinion G
on this point in the light of the evidence adduced by the direct witnesses
to the incident. It is a settled legal proposition that even ifthe absence of
motive, as alleged, is accepted that is of no consequence and pales into
insignificance when direct evidence establishes the crime. Therefore, in
case there is direct trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to commission
H
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 7 S.C.R.
of an offence, motive loses its significance. Therefore, ifthe genesis of
the motive of the occurrence is not proved, the ocular testimony of the
witnesses as to the occurrence could not be discarded only on the ground
of absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy of reliance.
[Bari Shankar Vs. State ofU.P., (1996) 9 SCC 40; Bikau Pandey &
Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, (2003) 12 SCC 616; State of U.P. Vs.
B
Kishanpal & Ors., (2008) 16 SCC 73; Abu Thakir & Ors. Vs. State
ofTamil Nadu, (2010) 5 SCC 91 and Bipin Kumar Monda! Vs. State
of West Bengal; (2010) 12 SCC 91].
47. The next line of contention taken by the I.earned counsel for
the respondents is that the recovery evidence was false and fabricated.
c We feel no need to address this issue since it had already been validly
discarded by the Trial court while convicting the respondents. In any
case, it is an established proposition of law that mere non-recovery of
weapon does not falsify the prosecution case where there is ample
unimpeachable ocular evidence. [See Lakahan Sao Vs. State ofBihar
D and Anr., (2000) 9 SCC 82; State ofRa,jasthan Vs. Arjun Singh &
Ors., (2011) 9 SCC 115 and Man.iit Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Pun.iab,
(2013) 12 sec 746].
48. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the
respondents that material questions regarding marriage, on which the
E prosecution had allegedly relied upon, were not put to the accused under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., thereby causing great prejudice to them. We feel
that there is no weight in this submission of the learned counsel for the
respondents since the purpose of Section 313 is only to bring the attention
of the accused to all the inculpatory pieces of evidence to give him an
opportunity to offer an explanation ifhe chooses to do so. As has been
F succinctly held by this Court in Raj Kumar Singh@ Raju @ Batya
Vs. State ofRa.iasthan, (2013) 5 SCC 722:
"In a criminal trial, the purpose of examining the accused
person under Section 313 Cr.P.C., is to meet the requirement
of the principles ofnaturaljustice i.e. audi alterwn partem.
G This means that the accused may be asked to furnish some
explanation as regards the incriminating circumstances
associated with him, and the court must take note of such
explanation."
49. We feel that no such prejudice has been caused to the accused
H
YOGESH SINGH v. MAHABEER SINGH & ORS. 743
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
on account of the failure of this Court to examine them under Section A
313 on the facts alleged by the prosecution since they were not
incriminating in nature. In any case, Nar Singh Vs. State of Haryana,
(201 S) 1 SCC 496, is an authority for the proposition that accused is not
per se entitled for acquittal on the ground ofnon-compliance of mandatory
provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C.
B
50. The learned counsel for the respondents has also sought to
assail the prosecution version on the ground of lack of independent
witnesses. We are not impressed by this submission in the light of the
observations made by this Court in Darya Singh Vs. State of Pun.jab,
AIR 1965 SC 328 = 1964(7) SCR 397, wherein it was observed:
c
"It is well-known that in villages where murders are
committed as a result of factions existing in the village or in
consequence of family feuds, independent villagers arc
generally reluctant to give evidence because they are afraid
that giving evidence might invite the wrath of the assailants
and might expose them to very serious risks. It is quite true D
that it is the duty of a citizen to assist the prosecution by
giving evidence and helping the administration of criminal
law to bring the offender to book, but it would be wholly
unrealistic to suggest that if the prosecution is not able to
bring independent witnesses to the Court because they are E
afraid to give evidence, that itself should be treated as an
infirmity in the prosecution case so as to justify the defence
contention that the evidence actually adduced should be
disbelieved on that ground alone without examining its
merits."
F
51. Similarly, in RaghubirSingh Vs. State ofU.P., (1972) 3 SCC
79, it was held that the prosecution is not bound to produce al I the witnesses
said to have seen the occurrence. Material witnesses considered
necessary by the prosecution for unfolding the prosecution story alone
need be produced without unnecessary and redundant multiplication of
witnesses. In this connection, general reluctance of an ·average villager G
to appear as a witness and get himself involved in cases of rival village
factions when tempers on both sides are running high, has to be borne in
mind.
52. Further, in Appabhai and Anr. Vs. State ofGu_jarat, 1988
H
744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 7 S.C.R.
A Supp (I) SCC 241, this Court has observed :
"Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally
insensitive when a crime is committed even in their
presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the
vigilante. They keep themselves away from the Court unless
B it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is
between two individuals or parties and they should not involve
themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is
indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether in
village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap
with which the investigating agency has to discharge its
c duties. The Court, therefore, instead of doubting the
prosecution case for want of independent witness must
consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and
then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to
probability, if any, suggested by the accused."
D 53. Next, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the
respondents that the site plan belies the prosecution claim in view of the
height of agricultural crops, as PWl, PW2 and PW5 could not have
seen the incident and more precisely as to which accused was doing
what. However, when we examine the deposition of PWS, it appears
E that there was some disparity in the height of the agricultural crops.
While some crops were waist high, others were only as high as the
knees. Hence, there is not much force in this submission of the learned
counsel for the respondents either. Besides, the judgment of this Court
in Prithvi Vs. Mam Raj, (2004) 13 SCC 279, is an authority for the
proposition that site plan is not a ground to disbelieve the otherwise
F credible testimony of eye-witnesses.
54. Finally, it has been submitted by the counsel for the respondents
, that the prosecution story smacked of fabrication in that it was not possible
for the prosecution witnesses to depose accurately as to the dragging of
the body of the deceased by the respondents by nine steps on the ground.
G We find no force in this submission in the light of the position oflaw laid
down by this Court in Leela Ram Vs. State ofHaryana (supra).
55. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned
judgment passed by the High Court. Having regard to the evidence on
record, the view expressed by the High Court, in our opinion, is not a
H
YOGESH SINGH v. MAHABEER SINGH & ORS. 745
[PINAKJ CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
plausible one. On the other hand, the trial court has correctly analyzed A
the material on record in the factual as well as legal perspectives to
arrive at its conclusion. The Judgment and order of conviction and
sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mathura, thus stand
restored. The respondents are hereby directed to surrender before the
Trial Court within a week, failing which the learned Sessions Judge
B
concerned shall take prompt steps to put the respondents .accused back
in jail to undergo the sentence awarded to them.
Devika Gujral Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search