TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hort the 'IPC'), and Section 201, I.P.C. They were each sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of ₹ 5,000/- with default stipulation of one year R.I. for the former and one and a half years' R.I. and fine of ₹ 500/- with default stipulation of 3 months' R.I. for the later. Allegations giving birth to the prosecution are essentially as follows On 4-2-1986 at about 9.30 a.m. Lakhvinder Singh (PW-9), his brother Sukhvinder Singh and a relative Pritam Singh (PW-10) were returning from their fields. When they reached turning of the street near the house of one Rattan Singh, deceased-Surjit Singh met them on his way towards fields. Suddenly, they found the accused-appellants Satnam Singh, Sucha Singh and Rachpal Singh who were armed with various deadly weapons, and Gurdip Singh and Rattan Singh (who were acquitted by the High Court) surrounded the deceased. Rattan Singh raised a 'lalkara' saying that the deceased should be taught a lesson for not vacating a plot. Gurdip Singh made a similar lalkara. All the accused persons surrounded the deceased and Sucha Singh gave two gandasa blows which hit the deceased on the temple on the right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fell down and suffered minor injuries. He alleged that his son had gone to the police station and returned to the village with the police. But, instead of taking action against the main culprit he and his family members were falsely implicated. Accused-appellants took the stand that they were arrested on 4-2-1986. The police officials manipulated the records to show as if they were arrested later on. In order to substantiate their plea, the accused persons examined four witnesses. Dalbir Singh (DW-1) produced the record to show that Lakhvinder Singh was studying in class 6th when he discontinued studies on 2-5-1981 and his date of birth is 20-4-1968. Harbhajan Singh (DW-2) produced the school records to show that Lakhvinder Singh had studied in his school up to class 5th R. S. Kumar (DW-3) stated that one Harbans Singh was confined in the sub-jail, Dasuya under the orders of SDM in a case under Sections 107/115 of Cr. P.C. and had a injury on the person at the time of admission into jail. Dr. Kamlesh Kumar (DW 4) stated about the injuries on Harbans Singh. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur held that the prosecution has been able to establish its accusations agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... larm is rather unusual. PW-10 who belongs to another village has not even signed the inquest report though he claimed to be present when inquest was done. This clearly establishes that he could not have been present as claimed. Injuries on the accused persons have not been explained. In view of the fact that two of the accused persons against whom similar evidence was tendered have been acquitted it would not be proper and legal to convict rest of accused persons on the same set of evidence. Benefit of doubt should be given on account of co-accused's acquittal. It was submitted that the evidence is inadequate to fasten guilt, and therefore prosecution cannot be said to have established its case beyond doubt. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted that the trial Court and the High Court have analysed the various points now urged in detail and have rightly come to the conclusion that the accused-appellants were guilty. In view of the admitted position that village was faction-ridden and there was lot of hostility, it would be too much to expect non-partisan witnesses. As noted above, there has been an elaborate analysis of the evidence of PWs-9 and 10. After caref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revailed in the minds of the Members of the Bar that relatives were not independent witnesses. Speaking through Vivian Bose, J. it was observed We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eye-witnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the fate of seven men hands on their testimony, we know of no such rule. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to many criminal cases and one which another Bench of this Court endeavoured to dispel in - 'Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan' (AIR 1952 SC 54 at p. 59) (1952 Cri LJ 547). We find, however, that it unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments of the Courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel. Again in Masalti and others v. State of U.P. (AIR 1965 SC 202) (1965 (1) Cri LJ 226) this Court observed But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. ...... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt to differentiate accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted. (Gurcharan Singh and another v. State of Punjab (AIR 1956 SC 460) (1956 Cri LJ 827)). The doctrine is a dangerous one specially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead stop. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however, true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respects the Court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well. The evidence has to be shifted with care. The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. (Sohrab s/o Beli Nayata and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1972 3 SCC 751) (AIR 1972 SC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the evidence or even from the investigation records that some other independent person has witnessed any event connecting the incident in question then there is justification for making adverse comments against non-examination of such person as prosecution witness. Otherwise, merely on surmises the Court should not castigate a prosecution for not examining other persons of the locality as prosecution witnesses. Prosecution can be expected to examine only those who have witnessed the events and not those who have not seen it though the neighbourhood may be replete with other residents also. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice according to law. (Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh and others (AIR 1990 SC 209) (1990 Cri LJ 562)). Prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused (State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava (AIR 1992 SC 840) (1992 AIR SCW 640 1992 Cri LJ 1104 1992 All LJ 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst indicated 'persons' and more severe punishment of those who are found guilty. Thus too frequent acquittals of the guilty may lead to a ferocious penal law, eventually eroding the judicial protection of the guiltless. ........ ......... a miscarriage of justice may arise from the acquittal of the guilty no less than from the conviction of the innocent. ....... The position was again illuminatingly highlighted in State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal (AIR 1988 SC 2154) (1989 AIR LJ 288). Similar view was also expressed in Gangadhar Behera and others v. State of Orissa (2002 (7) Supreme 276) (2002 AIR SCW 4271 AIR 2002 SC 3633 2003 Cri LJ 41). So far as inaction of P.Ws. 9 and 10 in not coming to rescue of deceased is concerned, it has been noted by the trial Court and the High Court that both of them were unarmed and bare handed and the accused persons were armed with deadly weapons. How a person would react in a situation like this cannot be encompassed by any rigid formula. It would depend on many factors, like in the present case where witnesses are unarmed, but the assailants are armed with deadly weapons. In a given case instinct of self-preservation can be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is made clear that failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation regarding the injuries found on the accused may show that the evidence related to the incident is not true or at any rate not wholly true. Likewise in Lakshmi Singh's case (supra) it is observed that any non-explanation of the injuries on the accused by the prosecution may affect the prosecution case. But such a non-explanation may assume greater importance where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. But where the evidence is clear, cogent and credit-worthy and where the Court can distinguish the truth from falsehood the mere fact that the injuries are not explained by the prosecution cannot by itself be a sole basis to reject such evidence, and consequently the whole case. Much depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Vijayee Singh and others v. State of U.P. (AIR 1990 SC 1459) (1990 Cri LJ 1510 1990 All LJ 415). Non-explanation of injuries by the prosecution will not affect prosecution case where injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
