2009 (8) TMI 1250 - SC - Indian Laws

Murder - Offence Punishable u/s 302 r/w 149 IPC and 324 of IPC - Two of the candidates contesting the election were the deceased - weight of evidence - the deceased was standing along with PW.1 his nephew in front of the polling station, when all the accused, 20 in number, armed with lethal weapons such as axes, knives, sticks and stones attacked him. A.1 Kotesswara caught hold of the deceased by his hair and gave two blows with a stone on his forehead and also stabbed him with a knife on his chest, A.2 Hanumantha Rao and A.3 Krishniah who were both armed with axes caused injuries on the back of the head of the deceased where after A.1 again stabbed the deceased on his shoulder. All the accused were charged u/s 148 - A1 to A3 were charged u/s 302 - the others u/s 302 r/w 149 IPC and u/s 324 by the trail court - The Trail Court found that the evidence with regard to the accused other than A.1 to A.3 was even more unacceptable and, having held as above, acquitted all the accused. The State thereupon took the matter to the High court in appeal. The High Court held that calling the judgment of the trial Court qua A.1 to A.3 as perverse, partly allowed the appeal and convicted them but confirmed the judgment of the trial Court with respect to the other accused. A.1 to A.3 are before us by way of special leave. HELD THAT - A perusal of the injuries would reveal that injury No. 1 has been caused by A.1, Injury No. 2 either by A.2 or A.3, Injury No. 3 by A.1, Injury Nos. 4 and 5 by A.1 with a stone and there are three or four additional injuries (on which emphasis has been laid by Mr. Rao) as they remain unexplained. Even assuming, however, that three injuries out of eight are unexplained, this one circumstance alone would not destroy the flow of the other evidence. It is clear that the incident had happened in the course of the Mandal Parishad Elections with several people being involved and a large group of spectators being present at the spot. In this scenario we feel that it would have been well nigh impossible for any witness to have given a mathematical or precise description of all the injuries that had been caused and that too in a melee. The fact remains that the injuries found on the dead body correspond fully with the weapons that had been used. As a matter of fact injury Nos. 4 and 5 which appeared to be inflicted with a stone allegedly in the hands of A.1 clearly prove the veracity of the story as it would have been inconceivable for a witness to have imagined that a stone, (a very unusual weapon for a pre-planned attack) would be used as A.1 was also armed with a knife which he used after the injury had been caused with a stone. We are thus of the opinion that the medical evidence does not in any way contradict the ocular evidence. As gone through the so called improvements/inconsistencies in the statements given by PW.1 and PW.5 to the police vis-a-vis their statements in court. It must be emphasized that the incident happened in the year 1995 whereas the evidence was recorded after about 8 years. Some discrepancies are, therefore, bound to occur. The question to be noted is as to whether the discrepancies or improvements are such which go to the root of the matter and affect veracity of the prosecution's story. We are of the opinion that the evidence herein does not fall within this slippery category. It is clear from the FIR recorded by PW.1 and his statement in Court that PW.5 had been present at the time of the incident. The other discrepancies that have been pointed out are to no avail keeping in view the over all picture. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court was fully justified in interfering in the matter and was well within its jurisdiction to do so, even in the light of the judgments cited by Mr. Rao. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Evaluation of eyewitness testimony
- Corroboration of eyewitness evidence with medical evidence
- Discordance between medical and ocular evidence
- Assessment of improvements and inconsistencies in witness statements
- Applicability of interference in appeal against acquittal

Evaluation of Eyewitness Testimony:
The case involved an incident during Mandal elections where the deceased was attacked by a group of accused armed with lethal weapons. The trial court initially found the eyewitnesses, PW.1 and PW.5, unreliable due to inconsistencies between their accounts and the medical evidence. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that the witnesses' testimonies aligned with the medical evidence, and their presence at the scene was justified. The Supreme Court analyzed the witnesses' credibility, noting their social background and the circumstances of the incident, ultimately affirming the High Court's decision to rely on the eyewitness accounts.

Corroboration of Eyewitness Evidence with Medical Evidence:
The trial court raised concerns about discrepancies between the injuries observed on the deceased and those described by the eyewitnesses. The High Court, however, found the eyewitness testimonies consistent with the medical report. The Supreme Court examined the injuries in detail and concluded that while some remained unexplained, the overall correspondence between the injuries and the weapons used supported the prosecution's narrative. The Court emphasized that in a chaotic event like the one in question, expecting precise details from witnesses was unrealistic, affirming the alignment of ocular and medical evidence.

Discordance Between Medical and Ocular Evidence:
The defense highlighted the differences between the medical report and the eyewitness accounts, arguing for the benefit of the doubt in favor of the accused. The Supreme Court meticulously reviewed the injuries inflicted, attributing them to specific accused individuals. Despite some unexplained injuries, the Court found the overall consistency between the injuries and the weapons used, dismissing the defense's argument of discordance between medical and ocular evidence.

Assessment of Improvements and Inconsistencies in Witness Statements:
The defense pointed out discrepancies and improvements in the statements of PW.1 and PW.5 over time. The Supreme Court acknowledged the discrepancies but emphasized that given the time lapse between the incident and the trial, such variations were expected and did not undermine the core prosecution's narrative. The Court concluded that the discrepancies were not substantial enough to discredit the witnesses' overall credibility, supporting the High Court's decision to rely on their testimonies.

Applicability of Interference in Appeal Against Acquittal:
The defense argued that the High Court's interference in an appeal against acquittal was unwarranted unless the trial court's judgment was deemed perverse. The Supreme Court clarified that while interference in acquittal cases should be rare, the High Court had the authority to re-evaluate evidence if the trial court's decision was found to be against the weight of evidence. The Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the interference was justified based on a thorough re-examination of the evidence.