1. Murder trial — Conviction under Section 302 IPC — Appeal against acquittal by High Court. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 1686
1998(1) Supreme 209
Supreme Court of India
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
G.T. Nanavati & K. Venkataswami, JJ.
Pandit Ram Prakash Sharma -Appellant
versus
Kharaiti Lal & Anr. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 657 of 1989
Decided on 17-12-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : G.K. Khuller, Sr. Advocate, R.C. Kohli, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Sushil Kumar, Sr. Advocate, R.P. Wadhwani, Ms. S. Bagga, Kuldip Singh, R.S. Sodhi, Advocates.
Important Points
The Court held that where the High Court's decision to acquit is based on a reasonable reappreciation of evidence, including unexplained injuries and physical improbabilities, such a view is not unreasonable and does not justify interference by the Supreme Court.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Appeal against acquittal recorded by High Court-Trial Court convicted respondent but acquitted remaining three accused on basis of evidence of two eye witnesses-High Court on reappreciation of evidence did not think it safe to rely upon evidence of two eye witnesses-Though all four accused were known to both eye witnesses, names of two accused were not given in initial version to police and doctor-Except fatal blow attributed to respondent, remaining 8 injuries on deceased remained unexplained-High Court found that fatal blow would not have been possible to inflict by respondent-View taken by High Court in such improbabilities and improvements could not be said unreasonable, justifying interference. (Paras 3 & 4)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the High Court's decision to acquit the accused based on the alleged unreliability of eye-witness testimony. (Para 1 , 3 )
3. The court found witness testimony unreliable due to unexplained injuries, inconsistencies in naming accused, and physical improbabilities regarding the fatal blow. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. An acquittal based on a reasonable reappreciation of evidence and identified improbabilities in witness testimony does not justify appellate interference. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 4 )
6. Can eye-witness testimony be relied upon if significant injuries on the deceased remain unexplained?
No. If witnesses fail to explain material injuries and provide versions inconsistent with medical evidence or initial statements, the court may find it unsafe to rely on their testimony. (Para 3 , 4 )
7. What is the effect of physical improbabilities in witness testimony on a conviction?
If the manner of the assault described by witnesses is physically impossible, the testimony is considered unreliable, which may justify an acquittal. (Para 4 )
8. Under what circumstances will an appellate court interfere with a High Court's order of acquittal?
An appellate court will not interfere if the High Court's view on the unreliability of evidence is reasonable and based on a proper reappreciation of the facts. (Para 4 )
Judgment
Nanavati, J.-This appeal is filed by the father of Gobind Ram, who was killed by accused Kharaiti Lal, on 24.11.1985 at about 9.30 p.m. The appellant Kharaiti Lal was acquitted by the High Court by allowing his appeal against the order of conviction passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur in Sessions Case 20/86 (Sessions Trial No. 46/86).
2. Along with Kharaiti Lal, 3 other accused were also tried for the murder of Gobind Ram and for causing injuries to Subhash Chander, P.W. 7. In order to prove its case the prosecuting had examined P.W. 6 Vijay Kumar and P.W. 7 Subhash Chander. The trial Court believed both these witnesses with respect to participation in the incident by Kharaiti Lal. It did not believe their evidence with respect to the remaining 3 accused. Thus they were acquitted and Kharaiti Lal was convicted under Section 302 IPC.
3. The High Court on reappreciation of evidence did not think it safe to rely upon the evidence of the two eye witnesses. The High Court took this view as there was no motive whatsoever for Kharaiti Lal to leave Subhash Chander and attack Gobind Ram on that day. Another reason given by the High Court was that as both these witnesses were not believed as regards the injuries stated to have been caused by accused Subhash Chander and accused Ramesh Kumar and as they had not explained remaining 8 injuries on the deceased it was not safe to rely upon their evidence even with respect to the injuries alleged to have been caused by Kharaiti Lal.
4. Having gone through the evidence of Subhash Chander and Gobind Ram we find that, even though all the 4 accused were known to them, accused Subhash Chander and accused Ramesh Kumar were not named by both the witnesses in their initial version given to the police and the doctor respectively. We also find that the remaining 8 injuries found on the deceased were not likely to have been caused as a result of fall from a bicycle. Thus those injuries remain unexplained. As pointed out by the High Court if the accused Kalia held the deceased in the manner described by the witnesses then it would not have been possible for Kharaiti Lal to give the fatal blow alleged to have been given by him. If in view of such improbablities and improvements made by the witnesses the High Court thought it fit not to believe the two eye witnesses, it cannot be said that the view taken by it is unreasonable justifying interference by this Court.
This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
********
