9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no occasion for the prosecution witnesses to explain any injury on the person of an accused. When the prosecution comes with a definite case that the offence has been committed by the accused and proves its case beyond any reasonable doubt, it becomes hardly necessary for the prosecution to again explain how and under what circumstances injuries have been inflicted on the person of the accused. It is more so when the injuries are simple or superficial in nature. In the case at hand, trifle and superficial injuries on accused are of little assistance to them to throw doubt on veracity of prosecution case, particularly, when the accused who claimed to have sustained injuries has been acquitted. The fact that name of P.W. 10 does not figure in the inquest report or that the DDR entry does not contain the name of Pritam Singh does not in any way corrode the credibility of the prosecution version, particularly when the reason as to why these were absent in the relevant documents has been plausibly explained by the witnesses, and after consideration accepted by the trial Court and the High Court. Thus, the appeals are without merit and deserve dismissal, which we direct. Appeals dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... last at the spot. Thereafter, all the accused persons brought the dead body of the deceased to the house of Rattan Singh and raised a lalkara that they would see if anybody would come to take the dead body. These macabre acts were witnessed by Lakhvinder Singh (PW-9) and Pritam Singh (PW-10). Report was lodged in the police station by Lakhvinder Singh (PW-9). Because of hostility between the parties, earlier security proceedings were initiated under sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr. P.C.'). Investigation was undertaken and on completion thereof, charge-sheet was filed. The accused-appellants along with two acquitted accused persons were tried for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 148, 149 and 201 of I.P.C. It is to be noted that the post mortem was conducted on 4-2-1986 by Dr. R. P. Maingi (PW-2). He found 16 injuries on the body of the deceased. He further opined that injuries 1 to 11 were caused by sharp edged weapon while injuries 12 to 16 were caused by blunt weapon. To establish the accusations, thirteen witnesses were examined. The accused persons were arrested on 4-2-1986, 5-2-1986 and 6-2-1986. At ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectness of the said judgment before this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 525-526/1989. By judgment dated 24-7-1997 the appeals were allowed and the matter was remitted to the High Court for a fresh disposal on merits. The High Court was requested to dispose of the appeals as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order. By the impugned judgment the High Court has taken the view that the accusations against the accused-appellants have been fully established; but held the evidence to be inadequate so far as accused Rattan Singh and Gurdip Singh are concerned. The accused-appellants assail correctness of the said judgment in these appeals. In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there are several infirmities which rendered the prosecution version vulnerable, but the Trail Court and the High Court lost sight of these vital factors. Had these factors been considered, there was no scope for finding the accused-appellants guilty. It was, inter alia, submitted that there was no independent witnesses examined. Only son and close relative of the deceased have been examined. No co-villager came to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. In Dalip Singh and others v. The State of Punjab (AIR 1953 SC 364) (1953 Cri LJ 1465) it has been laid down as under - 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 relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It 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 is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalizatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accepted as correct. To the same effect is the decision in State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh (AIR 1973 SC 2407) (1973 Cri LJ 1589) and Lehna v. State of Haryana (2002 (3) SCC 76). Stress was laid by the accused-appellants on the non-acceptance of evidence tendered by some witnesses to contend about desirability to throw out entire prosecution case. In essence prayer is to apply the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything). This plea is clearly untenable. Even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of number of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, the only available course to be made is to discard the evidence in toto. (Zwinglee Ariel v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1954 SC 15) (1954 Cri LJ 230) and Balaka Singh and others v. State of Punjab (AIR 1975 SC 1962) (1975 Cri LJ 1734). As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and another (AIR 1981 SC 1390) (1981 Cri LJ 1012), normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorised. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so. These aspects were highlighted recently in Krishna Mochi and others v. State of Bihar etc. (200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many guilty persons must be allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish. (Inder Singh and another v. State (Delhi Admn.) (AIR 1978 SC 1091) (1978 Cri LJ 766)). Vague hunches cannot take place of judicial evaluation. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial, merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man, does not escape. Both are public duties. (Per Viscount Simen in Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecutor (1944 AC (PC) 315) quoted in State of U.P. v. Anil Singh (AIR 1988 SC 1998) (1989 Cri LJ 88). Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. In matters such as this, it is appropriate to recall the observations of this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1974 (1) SCR 489 (492-493) (AIR 1973 SC 2622 1973 Cri LJ 1783) ...... The dangers of exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt at the expense of social defence and to the soothing sentiment that all acquittals are always good regardless o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osecution fails to explain the injuries found on some of the accused, the prosecution case should automatically be rejected, without any further probe. In Mohar Rai and Bharath Rai v. State of Bihar (1968 (3) SCR 525) (AIR 1968 SC 1281 1968 Cri LJ 1479), it was observed .......... In our judgment, the failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation in that regard shows that evidence of the prosecution witnesses relating to the incident is not true or at any rate not wholly true. Further those injuries probabilise the plea taken by the appellants. In another important case Lakshmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar (1976 (4) SCC 394) (AIR 1976 SC 2263 1976 Cri LJ 1736), after referring to the ratio laid down in Mohar Rai's case (supra) (AIR 1968 SC 1281 1968 Cri LJ 1479), this Court observed Where the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the accused, two results follow (1) that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is untrue; and (2) that the injuries probabilise the plea taken by the appellants. It was further observed that In a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of alter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the accused persons. When that is not done, there is no occasion for the prosecution witnesses to explain any injury on the person of an accused. In Hare Krishna Singh and others v. State of Bihar (AIR 1988 SC 863) (1988 Cri LJ 925), it was observed that the obligation of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence may not arise in each and every case. In other words, it is not an invariable rule that the prosecution has to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence. If the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are believed by the Court in proof of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, question of obligation of prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the accused will not arise. When the prosecution comes with a definite case that the offence has been committed by the accused and proves its case beyond any reasonable doubt, it becomes hardly necessary for the prosecution to again explain how and under what circumstances injuries have been inflicted on the person of the accused. It is more so when the injuries are simple or superficial in nature. In the case at hand, trifle and superfici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
