1980 (10) TMI 212 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Credibility of eyewitnesses and their testimonies.
2. The time of the occurrence of the crime.
3. The presence of cow-dung on the deceased's hands.
4. The nature of the weapon used.
5. The alleged motive and animosity between the parties.
6. The conduct of the Investigating Officer.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Credibility of Eyewitnesses and Their Testimonies:
The mainstay of the prosecution case was the evidence of four eyewitnesses: Manbodhan (P.W. 2), Laxminarain (P.W. 5), Girdhari (P.W. 6), and Chhotu (P.W. 7). The trial court found these witnesses reliable, noting that they had no reason to perjure themselves and had no motive to falsely implicate the accused. The High Court, however, rejected their testimonies, citing inconsistencies and improbabilities in their accounts, such as the unusual timing of their activities. The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court, stating that the generalization about rural habits was not applicable and that the witnesses' accounts were consistent and credible. The Supreme Court emphasized that minor discrepancies should not lead to wholesale rejection of their testimonies.

2. The Time of the Occurrence of the Crime:
The High Court suggested that the crime occurred before sunrise, based on the assumption that rural people usually attend to nature's call before sunrise. The Supreme Court rejected this generalization, noting that individual habits vary and that the witnesses were not specifically questioned about their exact activities and timings. The Supreme Court found that the occurrence took place after sunrise, as stated by the eyewitnesses, and that there was sufficient light at the time.

3. The Presence of Cow-Dung on the Deceased's Hands:
The High Court suspected that the cow-dung found on the deceased's hands was planted by the Investigating Officer to support the prosecution's story. The Supreme Court found no reasonable ground to support this suspicion. The presence of cow-dung was corroborated by the autopsy report and the testimony of the doctor (P.W. 4). The Supreme Court noted that the Investigating Officer was not given an opportunity to explain the alleged discrepancy, and it was unfair to condemn him without such an opportunity.

4. The Nature of the Weapon Used:
The High Court opined that the extensive injury found on the deceased could not have been caused by a Pharsa but by a weapon with a long curved blade. The Supreme Court found this opinion to be based on conjecture. The medical experts testified that the injuries could have been caused by a Pharsa or a similar sharp-edged weapon. The Supreme Court emphasized that the best person to give an opinion about the weapon was the Medical Officer who conducted the autopsy, and his testimony supported the prosecution's case.

5. The Alleged Motive and Animosity Between the Parties:
The High Court suggested that the witnesses had a motive to falsely implicate the accused due to previous animosities and relationships. The Supreme Court found no evidence to support this suggestion. The witnesses were consistent in their accounts, and there was no indication of any hostile animus against the accused. The Supreme Court reiterated that minor discrepancies in peripheral matters should not lead to the rejection of their credible testimonies.

6. The Conduct of the Investigating Officer:
The High Court criticized the Investigating Officer for alleged fraudulent conduct and suspected that he had manipulated evidence. The Supreme Court found no substantial basis for these allegations. The Investigating Officer's conduct was not scrutinized adequately, and he was not given a chance to explain the alleged discrepancies. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of fairness in evaluating the conduct of law enforcement officials.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order of acquittal, and convicted the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Panchania, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The conviction and sentence under Section 324 for causing hurt to the child, Jai Devi, were also restored. The accused was directed to surrender to his bail bonds to serve out the sentence.