1. Murder and assault charges — Conviction by trial court — Acquittal by High Court — Appeal against acquittal. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 1321
1997(8) Supreme 257
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.T. Nanavati and S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
State of Bihar etc. -Appellants
versus
Bishwanath Rai & Ors. etc. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 391-392 of 1986
With
Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 1986
Decided on 3-9-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : A.K. Jha, Pankaj Kalra, S.K. Singh, B.K. Sharma and Vijay Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents : R.K. Jain, K.D. Prasad, A.N. Bardiyar and M.P. Jha, Advocates.
Important Points
The court held that eye-witness testimony, even if consistent among witnesses, may be discarded if it is fundamentally inconsistent with medical evidence regarding the manner of the incident, as such contradictions create reasonable doubt about the veracity of the account.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Appeal against acquittal-16 accused were tried for murder and causing injuries to two eye witnesses-Medical evidence inconsistent with testimony of eye witnesses-Witnesses made an identical improvement in their evidence to make it consistent with medical evidence-High Court was justified in discarding their evidence when eye witnesses had not given correct account of manner in which incident had taken place-No reason to interfere with order of acquittal. (Paras 4 and 5)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to High Court's findings regarding the timing of the fard-bayan and the reliability of eye-witness testimony. (Para 4 )
3. Eye-witness testimony inconsistent with medical evidence regarding weapon type and injury nature — Witnesses' identical improvements and political affiliations cast doubt on reliability. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. Eye-witness evidence may be discarded if it is inconsistent with medical evidence and fails to provide a correct account of the incident. (Para 5 )
5. Appeals dismissed — Order of acquittal upheld — Bail bonds cancelled. (Para 6 )
6. When can eye-witness testimony be discarded despite being consistent among witnesses?
Testimony can be discarded if it is inconsistent with medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries or the weapon used, as this suggests the witnesses have not provided a correct account of the incident. (Para 4 , 5 )
7. What is the legal significance of identical improvements in witness testimony?
When witnesses make identical improvements to their evidence to align it with medical evidence after initial inconsistencies are revealed, it indicates a deliberate attempt to distort the truth, rendering the evidence unreliable. (Para 4 )
8. How does the court treat contradictions between ocular evidence and medical evidence?
Where ocular evidence is fundamentally inconsistent with medical evidence—such as the number of shots fired or the type of weapon used—it creates doubt regarding the real manner of the incident, justifying acquittal. (Para 4 )
JUDGMENT
Nanavati, J.-These three appeals, first two by the State of Bihar and the other by injured witness Ramesh Prasad Thakur and Shanti Devi widow of deceased, Bacha Thakur, are directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 4th September, 1985 passed by the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 506 and 569 of 1981.
2. As many as 16 accused were tried for the murder of Bacha Thakur and for causing injuries to Ram Prasad Thakur and Chandra Mohan Thakur. The trial Court acquitted accused Nos. 13 to 16. It held that the other accused had formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, caused the death of Bacha Thakur. Ram Chandra Singh, one of the respondents in these appeals was convicted under Section 302 IPC and others were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. They were also convicted under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC. Accused Nos. 2 to 12 challenged their conviction and sentence by preferring Criminal Appeal No. 506 of 1981 and Ram Chandra Singh did so by preferring a separate appeal, viz., Criminal Appeal No. 569 of 1981 in the Patna High Court. Both the appeals were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. The High Court allowed both the appeals and acquitted the accused.
3. The State feeling aggrieved applied for special leave of this Court to appeal against all the 12 accused who were convicted by the trial Court but acquitted by the High Court. This Court, however, granted leave to appeal against accused No. 1 only. Injured witness, Ramesh Prasad Thakur and Shanti Devi, widow of deceased Bacha Thakur have filed Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 1986, with leave of this Court against the acquittal of accused No. 1, Ram Chandra Singh only.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined 8 eye-witnesses. The trial Court found them reliable but though their evidence was consistent, on reappreciation of the entire evidence, the High Court considered it unsafe to rely upon their evidence. It held that (i) their evidence is not consistent with the medical evidence regarding the injury caused to the deceased; (ii) all eye-witnesses belong to village Patahi which is at a distance of 3 kms. from Muzaffarpur town where the incident took place and their explanation for their presence near the place of occurrence is not convincing; (iii) the fard-bayan though stated to have been recorded at 11.30 p.m. was possibly not recorded till 2.00 p.m. on the next day; and (iv) the eye-witnesses have suppressed the real manner in which the incident took place as they have failed to explain how a serious injury was received by one of the accused, Ram Nath Prasad Gupta. The learned counsel for the appellants challenged the finding recorded by the High Court that the fard-bayan of injured witness, Ramesh Prasad Singh was not recorded till 2.00 p.m. on the next day, as incorrect. On scrutiny of the evidence of Ram Jiwan Singh (P.W.13), Sub Inspector of Police who had recorded the fard-bayan, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (P.W. 16) and the Superintendent of Police (DW 1) and also the Injury Certificate (Exh.4) of Ramesh Prasad Thakur and the fard-bayan (Exh. A) of accused, Ram Nath Gupta @ Mohan Prasad Gupta, we find that the fard-bayan of injured witness, Ramesh Prasad Thakur was really recorded at about 11.30 p.m. on 24.5.1977. The fard-bayan which was recorded between 8.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. on 25.5.1977 was really of accused, Ram Nath. The finding recorded by the High Court is thus clearly wrong. However, we find no substance in the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. It was submitted that the evidence of eye-witnesses being consistent, ought to have been accepted by the High Court. What the High Court has pointed out is that though the evidence of the eye-witnesses appears to be consistent inter-se, is not consistent with the medical evidence and that creates a doubt regarding the real manner in which the incident had taken
