1. Appeals against acquittal for murder under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, where the High Court overturned a trial court conviction based on improbable witness testimony. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 346
1998(3) Supreme 232
Supreme Court of India
G.T. Nanavati and V.N. Khare, JJ.
Din Dayal -Appellant
versus
Raj Kumar @ Raju & Ors. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 57-58 of 1991
Decided on 3-3-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : K.B. Rohtagi, Advocate.
For the Respondents : V.C. Mahajan, Sr. Advocate, U.U. Lalit, W.A. Qadri, D.S. Mehra, Advocates.
Important Points
Important Point
Where acquittal recorded by High Court is based on a view based on evidence and is not unreasonable then no interference is called for by Supreme Court in an appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution.
Where acquittal recorded by High Court is based on a view based on evidence and is not unreasonable then no interference is called for by Supreme Court in an appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302/34-Trial Court convicted respondents on the basis of evidence of PW1 to PW4 for having murdered Jai Bhagwan in furtherance of their common intention-High Court acquitting them on ground that evidence given by PW1 to PW4 was so improbable and their conduct so unnatural creating serious doubt about their truthfulness viz. witnesses not accompanied with deceased to hospital nor informing police but quietly went back to their homes-Close connection with deceased-Deceased had enmity with accused which was shared by witnesses-Fatal injuries found not caused by alleged dagger on medical evidence - Improvements in evidence of appellant-Whether view taken by High Court is unreasonable? (No)-Result-No interference called against acquittal-Appeal dismissed (Constitution of India-Article 136-Appeal by special leave). (Paras 2 to 5)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the High Court was justified in discarding witness evidence that the trial court had previously deemed reliable and trustworthy. (Para 3 )
3. The High Court reasonably doubted the evidence due to the witnesses' unnatural conduct, existing enmity, and medical evidence contradicting the alleged weapon. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
4. An appellate court may discard witness evidence if the version provided is improbable and the conduct of the witnesses is unnatural. (Para 3 , 4 )
5. Appeals dismissed and bail bonds cancelled. (Para 5 )
6. When can an appellate court discard witness evidence previously accepted by a trial court?
An appellate court may discard evidence if the version provided is improbable and the conduct of the witnesses is unnatural, such as failing to inform police or accompany the deceased to the hospital. (Para 3 , 4 )
7. How does the presence of enmity and contradictory medical evidence affect the reliability of eye-witness testimony?
Evidence of enmity between the accused and the deceased, combined with medical evidence showing that the alleged weapon could not have caused the injuries, creates serious doubt regarding the truthfulness of the testimony. (Para 2 )
8. What impact do improvements in witness testimony have on its credibility?
Deliberate improvements made to testimony to make the presence of other eye-witnesses acceptable can indicate a lack of truthfulness and justify the court's decision to doubt the evidence. (Para 4 )
Judgment
Nanavati, J.-Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Crl. A. Nos. 53/86 and 56/86. Crl. Appeal No. 53/86 was filed by accused Raj Kumar and Pawan Kumar. The other appeal was filed by accused Uday Singh. All the three appellants were acquitted by the High Court; and therefore Din Dayal, the witness in the case and close relative of deceased Jai Bhagwan, has filed these appeals after obtaining special leave from this Court.
2. The trial Court believed the evidence of Basant Ram, Din Dayal, M.K. Bhatnagar and Kalu Ram (P. Ws. 1 to 4) and convicted the respondents under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. The High Court on reappreciation of their evidence found that the version given by them was so improbable and; their conduct was so unnatural that it created a serious doubt regarding the truthfulness of their evidence. The High Court also found that there was enmity between Jai Bhagwan and the respondents and the witnesses shared that hostility along with Jai Bhagwan. The High Court also doubted that the fatal injuries were caused to Jai Bhagwan with dagger Ex. P-1, alleged to have been discovered by respondent Raj Kumar, as the medical evidence showed that the injuries found on the person of Jai Bhagwan could not have been caused by that dagger. Taking this view the High Court acquitted the respondents.
3. What is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the High Court should not have discarded the evidence of these 4 witnesses particularly when the trial Court after carefully scrutinising it held that it was reliable and trustworthy. We find that the High Court has given good reasons for taking a different view. It has pointed the improbability of the version given by them. The witnesses had not accompanied the deceased to the hospital nor had taken any trouble of going and informing the police about what had happened. After seeing the incidence they quietly went back to their homes. It cannot be said that the view taken by the High Court that the conduct of the witnesses was not natural is unreasonable. They were not merely eye witnesses. They were closely connected with the deceased. The High Court was, therefore, justified in not placing any reliance upon their evidence.
4. Witness Din Dayal had accompanied the deceased to the hospital but after reaching there he did not disclose the name of the accused to the Police Constable who was on duty even though he disclosed other facts regarding the incident. This circumstance has been relied upon by the High Court together with some other reasons for doubting truthfulness of the evidence of this witness. The High Court has also referred to the improvements made by Din Dayal and those improvements clearly indicate that they were deliberately made with a view to make the presence of other eye witnesses acceptable. Having gone through the evidence we find that the view taken by the High Court is not unreasonable and no interference is called for by this Court.
5. These appeals are, therefore, dismissed. The bail bonds of the accused are ordered to be cancelled.
(N.K.) Appeal dismissed.
***********
