1999 Supreme(SC) 575

1999(4) Supreme 443
Supreme Court of India
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
G.B. Pattanaik & M.B. Shah, JJ.
State of Haryana -Appellant
versus
Tek Singh & Ors. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 360 of 1993
Decided on 3-5-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Ms. Shikha Ray Pabbi, (Sanjeev K. Pabbi), Advocate for Prem Malhotra, Advocates.
For the Respondents : S. Ujagar Singh, Sr. Advocate, (Devander Singh) Advocate for Ms. Naresh Bakshi, (E.C. Agrawala), Advocate (NP), R.S. Sodhi, Lokesh Kr., Advocates.

Important Point
Evidence of witnesses should be appreciated by keeping ground reality and fact situation in mind; where the incided took place all of a sudden within three minutes and several accused persons successively gave blows on victim it such circumstances even if there is some exageration with regard to blow inflicted by each accused it would be hardly be a ground for rejecting their testimony.

Headnote:Evidence Act, 1872-Section 3 -Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sec­tions 148, 149 and 302-Murder-Appeal against acquittal-Appreci­ation of evidence-Eight accused persons-Convictions of all by sessions Court-High Court acquitted 5 accused persons on ground medical evi­dence did not corroborate version of eye witnesses and role assigned to them and their participation not established in view of medical evidence-High Court also holding that motive for crime not estab­lished-NOC-Sustainable-Entire approach of High Court in appreciat­ing evidence of eye-wit­nesses erroneous Evidence of eyewitnesses should be appreciated keeping ground reality and fact situation in mind-Incident took place all of a sudden within two or three minutes-Successive blows were inflicted by eight accused persons-In such a fact situation some contradictions, as to who with what weapon assaulted, were bound to be there-It would be against ground reality to expect witness to depose exactly on which part of body blow landed-FIR lorded without delay-Version in FIR corroborated with evidence of eyewitness-Motive also stood proved-Acquittal set aside and conviction rendered by trial Court restored.

       Held : considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the reasons recorded by the trial Court, it is apparent that the entire approach of the High Court in appreciating the evidence of the eye-witnesses is erroneous. Further, the Court ought not to have taken into consideration the report of the Investigating Officer under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. wherein it was stated that Baldev Singh, Megha Singh, Sajan Singh and Jaspal Singh were innocent while appreci­ating the evidence led before the Court. However, it has to be stated that after appreciating the evidence of eye-witnesses, the High Court itself has confirmed the conviction of Baldev Singh (A-5) and Megha Singh (A-6) who were found innocent by the Investigating Officer. Their conviction is also confirmed at the time of granting leave to appeal. Their conviction is also confirmed at the time of granting leave to appeal. This reveals non-application of mind by the High Court to the facts of the fcase. Further, the Court while appreciating the evidence ought to have kept in mind and visualised the situation at the time of occurrence of the incident. Evidence of the witness should be appreciated by keeping ground reality and fact-situation in mind. It is also established law that even with regard to the inter­ested witness, it is the duty of the Court to separate truth from falsehood and the chaff from the grain. In view of the close relation­ship, witnesses naturally would have a tendency to exaggerate or add facts but while appreciating the evidence exaggerated facts are to be ignored unless it affects substratum of prosecution story. (Para 6)

       The evidence of P.W. 6, Bant Kaur, wife of the deceased Tek Singh is accepted by the High Court. Her presence at the scene of offence was natural particularly considering the fact that deceased was released on parole a day prior to the date of incident. She has narrated the entire incident. She has stated that her husband Tek Singh was convicted in a criminal case for causing injuries to Mrs. Mukhtiar Kaur. AT 8.30 p.m., she was present in the courtyard and that all the accused came from the side of Tek Singh’s house while firing and raising lalkaras. Tek Singh (A-1) was armed with the gune, Gurbachan Singh (A-2) was armed with rifle while remaining accused were armed with gandasas. On seeing them, Tek Singh and Gurdev Singh who were sitting out on the cot came inside the room; all the accused also entered the house; Baldev Singh gave gandasa blow on the back of the neck of Tek Singh as a result of which he fell downon the ground; while he was lying, Mela Singh inflicted injuries with gandasa on his right side face. Jaspal Singh gave gandasa blow on his right shoulder. Megha Singh gave gandasa blow on his right knee, Mela Singh gave a gandasa blow on his left buttock, Sajan Singh gave four to five in­juries with gandasa on his abdomen. Bachan Singh fired a shot rifle at Gurdev Singh which hit on his right thigh as a result of which he fell down on the ground. She has further stated that other accused assaulted Gurdev Singh with gandasa. With regard to Mrs. Mukhtiar Kaur, she has stated that either she was her Jethani or Devrani and she was the wife of Gurbachan Singh (A-2). She has also stated that when she tried to intervene, she was pushed by the accused. Mohinder Singh is a son of maternal uncle but they were not on visiting terms with him. The witnesses Chet Singh P.W. 5 and Bhola Singh, P.W. 7 have fully corroborated her evidence and narrated the incident in detail. (Para 7)

       As stated by the witness Chet Singh, P.W. 5 in his cross-examination that assault was over within two to three minutes, it would be diffi­cult for any witness to state exactly which accused inflicted how many blows on the deceased. In these set of circumstances, if there is some exaggeration in the evidence of the witnesses those exaggerations are to be separated by taking into consideration overall facts on record. Further, it is to be stated that with regard to the main part of the prosecution version that accused assaulted deceased Gurdev Singh, the prosecution evidence is fully corroborated by medical evidence. The medical evidence also corroborates the say of the witnesses that on both the deceased, apart from injury by firearm, accused assaulted by gandasa. Dr. R.K. Chaudhary, P.W. 1 and Dr. H.L. Gupta, P.W. 2, who carried on post-mortem examination of Gurdev Singh (deceased), found that he was having as many as 13 injuries out of which 6 injuries were incise wounds. There were multiple contusions and lacerated wounds on the body. Similarly, with regard to Tek Singh (deceased), there were in all 9 injuries 3 were incise wounds and rest were multiple contu­sions and lacerated wounds. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not corroborated by medical evidence. It is true that they have failed to locate exact seat of the injuries but that is natural, when the incident takes place all of a sudden within two to three minues and successive blows are inflcited by the accused, 8 in numbers. They came all of a sudden armed with the deadly weapons and attacked the victims, who rushed to take the shelter in the house. In such a fact situation, some contradictions as to why assaulted whom, with what weapon and whether it was by sharp edge or blunt side of Gandasa are bound to be there and particularly when blows are given in quick succession, it would be against the ground reality to expect the witnesses to depose exactly on which part of the body blow landed. In these circumstances, even if there is some exaggeration with regard to the inflictions of blows, it would hardly be a ground for rejecting their testimony. It may be futile to expect an exact description of the details of attack on the victims by each accused from the widow of one of the deceased who witnessed the des­tardly act or from eye-witnesses. Accused were known to the widow and the witnesses. Their names are disclosed immediately. Hence, presence of the accused at the scene of offence was established. They all were armed with deadly weapons and came together. In such a situation, when the presence of the accused who were armed with deadly weapons is established beyond doubt, Sections 148 and 149 IPC would come into operation and they would be liable for the offences. In this view of the matter, there was no warrant at all for the High Court to reverse the judgment of the Sessions Court which is analytical and well reasoned. High Court has also not given due importance to the fact that FIR was lodged immediately disclosing the entire incident and the names of the accused. The incident took place at about 8.30 p.m. on 14th September, 1988. FIR was recorded at 11.30 p.m. and its copy was September, 1988. FIR was recorded at 11.30 p.m. and its copy was received by the Illaqa Magistrate, Hissar at 4.30 a.m. on the same night. The FIR was lodged by Chet Singh and Bhola Singh also had accompanied Chet Singh at the Police Station. So Additional Sessions Judge rightly came to the conclusion that within two and a half hours of the occurrence, information was lodged with the Police and that copy of the FIR was sent at Hissar which is 90 Km. from Jakhal by a special report which reached to the Magistrate at Hissar at 4.30 a.m. during the same night and in these circumstances, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses get corroboration from the FIR. (Para 8)

       Admittedly deceased Tek Singh was convicted for causing injury to Mrs. Mukhtiar Kaur, wife of Gurbachan Singh (A-2). He was released on parole and on next day, he was assaulted and murdered. Further, it is a say of Chet Singh and P.W. 6 Bank Kaur that Chet Singh wanted to contest election for the post of Sarpanch of the village. He withdrew his candidature and Tek Singh (A-1) was elected. It is the say of the witnesses that he with­drews his candidature as there was compromise and it was understood between him and accused that his wife would be co-opted as a female member of the Panchayat. This understanding was not honoured by Tek Singh and on that account, there was a dispute. In the cross-examination, he has stated that even though Gurbachan Singh and Gurmel Singh, on the one hand, and the other accused persons, namely, Tek Singh and others are totally from different families, they formed one group and were close to each other. There was no reason to disbelieve this part of the evidence. Further, in his Section 313 statement, the accused Tek Singh stated that he was falsely involved due to enmity between him and the complainant side; he contested the election of Sarpanch against Chet Singh and he was elected; Chet Singh put pres­sure upon him to co-opt his wife as the member of the Panchayat which he refused to oblige therefore he bore grudge in his mind. It is the say of Gurbachan Singh in Section 313 statement that deceased Tek Singh had inflicted injuries to Mrs. Mukhtiar for which he was prosecuted and convicted. He had also dispute with him for 22 Quilla of land in Village Chandpur belonging to his maternal grandfather and the deceased Tek Singh was asking for share in that land due to that reason, Tek Singh’s family members were having grudge against him. Therefore, he and his brother were falsely involved in the case by Bant Kaur in consultation with Chet Singh. Similar statement is made by accused Gurmail Singh. In view of the aforesaid evidence and statements of the accused it would be difficult to hold that there was no motive on the part of the accused. (Para 9)

       Hence, the appeal is allowed, judgment and order passed by the High Court acquitting the respondents for the offences for which they were charged is quashed and set aside and the conviction rendered by the trial Court is restored. (Para 10)