1. Conviction under Sections 302/149 and 148 IPC for murder and unlawful assembly following a fatal shooting during agricultural work. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 1245
1998(9) Supreme 441
Supreme Court of India
(From Allahabad High Court)
G.B. Pattanaik & M.B. Shah, JJ.
Bharat Singh etc. -Appellants
versus
State of Uttar Pradesh -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1226 of 1997
With
Criminal Appeal No. 1227 of 1997
Decided on 17-12-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : U.R. Lalit, Sr. Advocate, K.R. Nagaraja, and K.K. Tyagi, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Prashant Kumar, Vishwajit Singh, A.S. Pundir, Advocates.
Important Points
The court held that conviction based on the reliable testimony of eye witnesses is sustainable even if there is a lack of independent corroboration from non-eye witnesses or minor inconsistencies, provided the core evidence is trustworthy and consistent with the prosecution's case.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302/149-Murder-Appeal against conviction for-Accused allegedly surrounded deceased while he was busy with cultivation work and fired at him-Previous rivalry-Two eye-witnesses who were working with deceased ran away to save their life-Trial Court believing evidence of eye-witnesses convicted accused - High Court confirming conviction on reappreciation of evidence-Defence plea that witnesses were enemical and without corroboration from independent sources their evidence not fully reliable-Not acceptable on facts and circumstances-Alleged contradiction in evidence of eye-witnesses immaterial-Conviction does not warrant interference. (Para 2)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Reliability of enemical eye-witnesses — necessity of independent corroboration — non-examination of police guards — lack of other village witnesses — inconsistency with medical evidence. (Para 1 )
3. Eye-witness testimony was consistent and reliable — non-examination of police guards not fatal as they were not eye-witnesses to the shooting — medical evidence inconclusive on distance. (Para 2 )
4. Conviction based on reliable eye-witness testimony is sustainable even if other potential witnesses, who did not witness the actual crime, are not examined. (Para 2 )
5. Appeals dismissed and convictions upheld. (Para 2 )
6. Does the non-examination of witnesses who chased the accused but did not see the actual crime vitiate the prosecution?
No. If the witnesses are not eye-witnesses to the actual occurrence of the crime, their non-examination is not fatal to the prosecution, provided the testimony of actual eye-witnesses is reliable. (Para 2 )
7. How does the court treat minor inconsistencies in the testimony of eye-witnesses?
Minor inconsistencies do not necessarily detract from the intrinsic worth of the evidence or render witnesses unreliable, especially when the core prosecution case remains consistent. (Para 2 )
8. Can a conviction be challenged based on the absence of scorching or blackening in medical evidence if the shooting distance is unknown?
In the absence of a positive medical opinion regarding the exact distance of shooting, the lack of scorching, blackening, or tattooing does not automatically render eye-witness testimony unreliable. (Para 2 )
Judgment
Pattanaik, J.-These two appeals are directed against the Judgment and Order 30th January, 1997 of Allahabad High Court arising out Sessions Trial No. 213 of 1978 before the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri. Five appellants were tried for offences under Section 302/149 and Section 148 IPC on the allegation that all of them came armed and surrounded the deceased Jai Dayal Singh, while he was busy with cultivation work on 15.10.77 at 1.00 P.M. and opened fire at him. On account of such firing the deceased died. The further prosecution case is that on account of previous rivalry between the parties the deceased had been given police guards and those police guards arrived at the scene of occurrence and even chased the assailants and fired at them but all the assailants escaped. While the deceased was on the field, P.W. 1 Jai Prakash and P.W. 2 Satyapal Singh were also there but they ran for their lives to a certain distance and came to the place of occurrence only after the assailants left the place. Jai Prakash P.W. 1 gave a written report at the Police Station at 3.05 P.M. which was treated as FIR and the police then started investigation. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and on being committed, the appellants stood their trial. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of the two eye witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, came to the conclusion that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly and started indiscriminately firing at the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased died. Consequently, the Sessions Judge convicted the appellants for the offences as already stated. On appeal, the High Court also re-appreciated the evidence of the two eye witnesses and agreed with the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge that the witnesses are trust-worthy and reliable and, therefore, the conviction of the appellants on the basis of those two witnesses was upheld. Since the conviction of the appellants is based upon the evidence of the aforesaid two eye witnesses, Mr. U.R. Lalit, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellants contended that the said two eye witnesses admittedly being enemical towards the accused persons, they cannot be held to be fully reliable witnesses and, therefore, corroboration from the independent sources, though was available, the same not having been made available in Court, the prosecution was must be held to have been vitiated. According to Mr. Lalit, the police guards having reached the scene of occurrence while the accused persons were there and the prosecution evidence being that the police guards chased the accused persons and there was an exchange of fire, non-examination of those police guards must be construed to be an infirmity which impeaches the reliability of the two enemical eye witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 2. Mr. Lalit also contended that the occurrence having taken place at 1.00 P.M. in broad day light in an open field and very near the Village Basti, normally one would expect several villagers as witnesses and non-availability of such witnesses must be viewed with suspicion. Mr. Lalit also further argued that the investigation in the case has not been made in a fair manner and the true story has not been placed before the Court, as a result of which the conclusion becomes irresistible that the genesis of the case and the manner in which the deceased met his death is not coming forth before the Court and, therefore the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. According to Mr. Lalit, the fact that only three cartridges were found, two of which from 12 bore gun and one from riffle, the prosecution case that all the appellants started indiscriminately firing at the deceased cannot be accepted. Learned counsel also pointed out some intrinsic inconsistency between the evidence of the witnesses of P.Ws. 1 & 2 and contended that the evidence of such witnesses cannot form the basis of conviction in a charge of murder, particularly when they had positive animosit
