2022 (2) TMI 1299 - SC - Indian Laws

Conviction of appellant for life - acquittal for the offence charged under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) - reliability on eye witnesses - HELD THAT - While appreciating the evidence as aforesaid along with the matters attached to it, evidence can be divided into three categories broadly namely, (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. If evidence, along with matters surrounding it, makes the court believe it is wholly reliable qua an issue, it can decide its existence on a degree of probability. Similar is the case where evidence is not believable. When evidence produced is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, it might require corroboration, and in such a case, court can also take note of the contradictions available in other matters. There are three eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution. PWs-1 2 have not contradicted between themselves being the eye-witnesses. Merely because they are related witnesses, in the absence of any material to hold that they are interested, their testimonies cannot be rejected. There is also no delay in the registration of the FIR. PW-3 though turned hostile, spoke about the incident in his chief examination. Strangely, in the cross examination he turned turtle, while disputing the very factum of his chief examination made before the court. We do not wish to say anything on the credibility of the said witness in view of the evidence of PWs -1 2. The view of the courts on this witness also deserves to be accepted. The High Court has rightly set aside the conviction rendered by the trial court for the charge under Section 307 IPC. PWs-1 2 have not spoken about the presence of the injured witness, Om Prakash. The circumstances under which he could not be produced was explained by the prosecution. Merely because he was not produced, the entire case of the prosecution would not become false - the trial court as well as the High court considered the evidence threadbare in coming to the right conclusion. Similarly, the contention that there is non-explanation for the existence of some other empty cartridge recovered from the place of occurrence would not facilitate an acquittal for the appellants as there are materials sufficient enough to implicate and prove the offence against them. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and sentence under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
2. Adequacy of charges under Section 307 IPC.
3. Reliability of eyewitness testimonies.
4. Evidentiary value of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report.
5. Non-examination of certain witnesses.
6. Role and examination of the investigating officers.
7. Legal principles regarding hostile witnesses, related and interested witnesses, and chance witnesses.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction and Sentence under Section 25 of the Arms Act:
The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence under Section 25 of the Arms Act for all appellants except one, whose case was remitted for adequacy of charge. The Supreme Court found no fault in the High Court's judgment regarding this aspect.

2. Adequacy of Charges under Section 307 IPC:
The High Court acquitted the appellants of charges under Section 307 IPC due to the non-examination of an injured witness, Om Prakash, and the absence of specific evidence supporting the charge. The Supreme Court upheld this acquittal, noting the prosecution's explanation for Om Prakash's non-production and the lack of impact on the overall case.

3. Reliability of Eyewitness Testimonies:
The prosecution presented three eyewitnesses (PWs-1, 2, and 3). PWs-1 and 2, being related to the deceased, were deemed reliable as their testimonies were consistent and corroborated by other evidence. PW-3 turned hostile but his initial testimony supported the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court emphasized that related witnesses are not automatically interested witnesses and can be credible if their evidence is cogent and withstands cross-examination.

4. Evidentiary Value of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Report:
The FSL report was crucial in linking the weapons recovered from the appellants to the crime. The Supreme Court found no delay in sending the recovered arms to the FSL or receiving the report. The report was considered reliable and corroborated by other evidence.

5. Non-examination of Certain Witnesses:
The Supreme Court held that non-examination of certain witnesses, including Om Prakash, did not vitiate the prosecution's case. The court emphasized the principle that the quality of evidence matters more than the quantity, and the prosecution's explanation for not producing certain witnesses was satisfactory.

6. Role and Examination of the Investigating Officers:
Three investigating officers were involved, with PW-13 conducting the substantial part of the investigation. Despite PW-13's incomplete cross-examination, the Supreme Court found that the other two investigating officers provided sufficient corroboration. The final report, being a collective opinion, was not considered substantive evidence but supported the prosecution's case.

7. Legal Principles Regarding Hostile Witnesses, Related and Interested Witnesses, and Chance Witnesses:
- Hostile Witnesses: The court can rely on portions of a hostile witness's testimony that are consistent with the prosecution's case. PW-3's initial testimony was considered despite his later retraction.
- Related and Interested Witnesses: Related witnesses are not inherently interested. Their testimony can be reliable if it is consistent and corroborated. PWs-1 and 2, related to the deceased, were considered credible.
- Chance Witnesses: The testimony of chance witnesses, who happen to be at the scene by chance, requires careful scrutiny but cannot be dismissed outright. Their presence must be adequately explained.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, affirming the life sentences under Section 25 of the Arms Act and acquitting the appellants of charges under Section 307 IPC. The court emphasized the importance of quality evidence, the reliability of related witnesses, and the proper handling of hostile witnesses. The judgment also highlighted the need for trial courts to avoid unnecessary adjournments and ensure timely cross-examination of witnesses to prevent manipulation.