Important points
1. Criminal justice should not be made the casualty for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in the case. If the court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true the Court is free to act on it albeit investigating officer’s suspicious role in the case.
2. Investigating officer cannot be barred from looking into records to refresh his memory while giving evidence.
3. Unless the reaction demonstrated by an eye witness is so improbable or so inconceivable from any human being pitted in such a situation it is unfair to dub his reactions as unnatural.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Conviction under-Appeal against acquittal-Charge that accused stabbed to death his lover-Motive that deceased refused to marry accused against wishes of her parents-At the time of incident accused was in house of accused’s relative-Defence that victim might have been killed by son of his relative and he was implicated only to extricate real offender out-Trial Court convicted accused on basis of eyewitness and that accused surrendered to police immediately after committing crime-High Court acquitting accused holding that alleged chopper used for committing crime in present shop could not have caused injuries described in postmortem report-Further finding that two sheets in Station House Diary found to be torn and in that place sheets pasted and as such theory of surrender was suspicious-Not sustainable-If chopper remained in original condition when strikes were inflicted all injuries sustained would have been caused by it-Eyewitness supported police version-Eyewitness’s evidence admits of no other hypothesis except exclusive involvement of accused in murder-Acquittal order of High Court set aside-Conviction rendered by Trial Court restored. (Paras 16, 17, 18, 23, 33 to 36)
       (ii) Criminal trial-Appreciation of evidence-Evidence of investigation officer-Even if investigation is illegal or even suspicious rest of evidence must be scrutinised independently-Court must have predominence and pre-eminence in criminal trials over action by investigating officers-If Court is convinced that testimony of witness to occurrence is true Court is free to act on it albeit investigation officer’s suspicious role in the case.
       Held : But can the above finding (that the Station House Diary is not genuine) have any inevitable bearing on the other evidence in this case? If the other evidence, on scrutiny, is found credible and acceptable, should the Court be influenced by the machinations demonstrated by the Investigating Officer in conducting investigation or in preparing the records so unscrupulously. It can be a guiding principle that as investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial, the conclusion of the Court in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. It is well nigh settled that even if the investigation is illegal or even suspicious the rest of evidence must be scrutinized independently of the impact of it. Otherwise criminal trial will plummet to the level of the investigating officers ruling the roost. The Court must have predominance and pre-eminence in criminal trials over the action taken by investigating officers. Criminal justice should not be made the casualty for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in the case. In other words, if the court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true the Court is free to act on it albeit investigating officer’s suspicious role in the case. (Para 19)
       (iii) Evidence Act-Section 159 -Criminal trial-Evidence of investigating officer-Officers right to refresh memory by looking into records-Scope of.
       Held : Trial Court cannot overlook the reality that an investigating officer comes to the Court for giving evidence after conducting investigation in many other cases also in the meanwhile. Evidence giving process should not bog down to memory tests of witnesses. An investigating officer must answer the questions in Court, as far as possible, only with reference to what he had recorded during investigation. Such records are the contemporaneous entries made by him and hence for refreshing his memory it is always advisable that he looks into those records before answering any question. (Para 21)
       The objection of the defence counsel when investigating officer wanted to reply by referring to the records of investigation is, therefore, untenable and unjustified. The trial Court should repel such objections. (Para 22)
       (iv) Criminal trial-Appreciation of evidence of eyewitness-Unless reaction demonstrated by an eyewitness is so unprobable or so inconceivable from any human being pitted in such a situation it is unfair to dub his reactions as unnatural.
       Held : Criminal Courts should not expect a set reaction from any eye witness on seeing an incident like murder. If five persons witness one incident there could be five different types of reactions from each of them. It is neither a tutored impact nor a structured reaction which the eye witness can make. It is fallacious to suggest that PW-11 would have done this or that on seeing the incident. Unless the reaction demonstrated by an eye witness is so improbable or so inconceivable from any human being pitted in such a situation it is unfair to dub his reactions as unnatural. (Para 26)
       (v) Criminal Trial-Adduction of evidence to contradict evidence of witness-Condition precedent to permit.
       Held : The general rule of evidence is that no witness shall be cited to contradict another witness if the evidence is intended only to shake the credit of another witness. The said rule has been incorporated in Section 153 of the Evidence Act. The basic requirement for adducing such contradictory evidence is that the witness, whose impartiality is sought to be contradicted with the help of such evidence, should have been asked about it and he should have denied it. Without adopting such a preliminary recourse it would be meaningless, if not unfair, to bring in a new witness to speak something fresh about a witness already examined. As the general rule of evidence is one of prohibiting evidence on collateral issues and since it is only by way of exception that such evidence can be permitted, the Court must guard that the defence evidence falls strictly within the exception. (Paras 28, 30 & 31).

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court held that the rest of the evidence must be scrutinized independently even if the investigation is illegal or suspicious, and the court may rely on eyewitness testimony if credible (!) (!) (!) . - An investigating officer may refresh memory using records made at the time of the transaction; objections to referencing such records are untenable, and Section 159 supports refreshing memory with contemporaneous writings (!) (!) (!) . - Section 153 of the Evidence Act permits contradicting a witness on grounds of impartiality only with proper foundation and questions asked to the witness about alleged bias; generally, evidence on collateral issues is restricted (!) (!) (!) (!) .

What is the standard for considering eyewitness testimony when the investigating officer's conduct or records are suspicious?

What is the court’s stance on refreshing an investigation officer's memory with contemporaneous investigation records during testimony?

What is the proper approach to evaluating contradictory evidence and the admissibility of evidence aimed at impeaching a witness's impartiality?

Judgment

Thomas, J.-A love affair got swerved to the wrong side and sank into tragedy. The female partner in the affair, as it often happens, became the victim of the tragedy. Rekha, a working woman and Yarappa Reddy, the respondent - a milk trader - were the participants in the ill-fated romantic adventure. Rekha was badly mauled to death on the morning of the Martyrs Day (30th January) of 1982 for which the respondent Yarappa Reddy was indicted by the police. Sessions Court convicted him, but the High Court acquitted him. Thus the present appeal at the instance of the State by special leave.

2. Rekha was put up in a college hostel at Bangalore while she was doing her B.A. As she failed in the final examinations her father put her up in the house of a relative for prosecuting her studies. That relative’s daughter Anitha (PW-8) became her friend. Respondent Yarappa Reddy was living a few yards away from the house of PW-8. Respondent developed a fascination for Rekha which in due course snowballed into a love affair. They exchanged love letters between each other. In the meantime Rekha got a job as Receptionist in a company called “Azad Coach Builders”. She was later promoted as Cashier.

3. The love affair initially was on cloud nine, but as days passed it did not sail smooth. One of the love letters happened to reach Rekha’s father. He took his daughter to task and wangled a promise from her that she would not do coquetry towards respondent and that she would not marry any one against the wishes of her parents.

4. But respondent was not prepared to softpedal the affair. He continued to frequent Rekha to her chagrin and persisted with his plan to marry her. She told him of the hubbubs which took place after one of the love letters mis-reached and she expressed her disinclination to marry him. This recusancy was beyond his limit of forbearance. He determined either to repossess her or to finish her off.

5. Now, comes the disputed part of the story. On the day of occurrence Rekha, as usual, went to the Coach Factory by 10 A.M. Respondent went there on a motorcycle and talked to Rekha and persuaded her to go along with him to another place for continued parleys over their affair. The unsuspected lady went with him. He decoyed her to the house of PW-11 (Sharadamma) who was a family friend. Rekha was introduced to her as his would be bride. PW-11 Sharadamma presumably welcomed the choice and showed her hospitability by supplying coffee to her guests. She withdrew to her kitchen for affording the young couple undisturbed forum to carry on their chat, without knowing that a cauldron of rancour was fuming in his mind, and a blood craving chopper was twitching in his bag.

6. How the conversation turned violent is not known to anyone else except the two. At one point of time respondent whipped out a chopper from his bag and inflicted murderous blows on Rekha. She yelled out “Amma”. PW-11 Sharadamma overhearing the cry rushed to the drawing room and saw Rekha lying down bleeding. Respondent suddenly turned towards PW-11 and fell on her feet with the blood-oozing chopper and prayed for pardon as he killed his fiancee. The stunned housewife remained transfixed and dump-founded. Accused then left the house with the chopper and rode away on his motorcycle.

7. Accused went to the local police station and surrendered the blood-stained chopper to PW-15 Thimmaiah, the Sub-Inspector of police who was then the Station House Officer. He gave a statement which was used as first information statement. PW-15 took the respondent back to the house of PW-11 as he offered to show the house where the dead body was lying. PW-16 Circle Inspector later arrived and held the inquest.

8. Post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. H.A. Somaiah (PW-4) on the body of Rekha. He noted 9 ante-mortem injuries of which 4 were stab wounds and the remaining were scratches. The injury which became fatal has the following description : “An incised stab wound over the mi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 1149

What is the standard for considering eyewitness testimony when the investigating officer's conduct or records are suspicious?

What is the court’s stance on refreshing an investigation officer's memory with contemporaneous investigation records during testimony?

What is the proper approach to evaluating contradictory evidence and the admissibility of evidence aimed at impeaching a witness's impartiality?

Cases Referred (3)