Important Point
Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefor should not render the evidence of eye witnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness

Headnote:(i) Criminal Trial-Appreciation of evidence-Eyewitnesses-Minor embellishment and variation cannot render evidence of eyewitnesses unbelievable-Evidence to be considered from point of view of trustworthiness-Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence.
       Held : The High Court is within its jurisdiction being the first appellate court to re-appraise the evidence, but the discrepancies found in the ocular account of two witnesses unless they are so vital, cannot affect the credibility of the evidence of the witnesses. There is bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefor should not render the evidence of eye witnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. (Para 9)
       The Court shall have to bear in mind that different witnesses react differently under different situations : whereas some become speechless, some start wailing while some others run away from the scene and yet there are some who come forward courage, conviction and belief that the wrong should be remedied. As a matter of fact it depends upon individuals and individuals. There cannot be any set pattern or uniform rule of human reaction and to discard a piece of evidence on the ground of his reaction not falling within a set pattern is unproductive and a pedantic exercise. (Para 11)
       It is indeed necessary to note that hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain some exaggeration or embellishments - shometimes there could even be a deliberate attempt to offer embellishment and sometimes in their over anxiety they may give slightly exaggerated account. The Court can sift the chaff from the corm and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. Total repulsion of the evidence is unnecessary. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness - If this element is satisfied, they ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the court to accept the stated evidence though not however in the absence of the same. (Para 12)
       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302 r/w Section 27 of Arms Act-Appeal against acquittal-Accused allegedly fired two shots at deceased-Son and brother-in-law were eye witnesses among other-Motive for crime refusal of deceared to allow accused to dig a water course-Trial Court convicting accused-High Court did not accept prosecution case on account of alleged contradiction as to an which side of body of deceased accesed fired-High Court’s view that injury was caused by single shot and two shots as was the case of prosecution not possible in view of nature of wound-Acquittal order of High Court unjustified-Occular evidence could not be disbelived mereley because witnesses were relatives especially when these evidence stood corroborated by independent eyewitness-Ballistc experts opinion and medical evidence supported version of prosecution case-High Court relying on some minor contradictions fell into error in acquitting the accused-Acquittal order set aside. (Paras 14 to 19)

Judgment

Banerjee, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against an order of acquittal passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, reversing the order of conviction and sentence of life imprisonment passed by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

2. The occurrence dates back to 16th July, 1983 at about 12.00 noon in a village called Alipur Barota. The prosecution case as made out, depicts that the accused wanted to dig a khal forcibly through the filed of one Maman Ram, which was objected to and the local Sarpanch was also informed accordingly. At a meeting, called by the Sarpanch, it was decided that the matter ought to be resolved amicably and by reason therefor the Penchayat consisting of Kurra Ram (PW 2), Leela Ram (PW 1), Ram Kumar Pamch and Bhim Sen (PW 4) alongwith deceased Maman Ran and a few other persons proceeded towards the filed of the accused. The Maman Ram, the deceased, was few paces ahead of the other members. When however the deceased Maman Ram, was near the field of Kundan Singh, the accused came out of the field with a double barrel gun and on seeing Maman Ram, raised a Lalkara to the effect “pani na dene ka maza chakhata hun”. The accused thereafter fired a shot from his gun, striking on the chest of the deceased Maman Ram. The other members of the group on hearing the gun shot, stopped there and immediately thereafter the second shot was fired by the accused and who then left the place running with his gun towards village Aharwan. The Sarpanch arrived there a little later and he and Kurra Ram remained at the place whereas Leela Ram (son of the deceased) went to the Police Station, Fatehabad and gave the first, information statement being recorded as Exh. PA before the trial Court. Upon compliance with the formalities, Sub-Inspector Devi Dutt along with Leela Ram went to the place of occurrence and prepared the inquest report (Ex.PG) and despatched the dead body to Civil Hospital, Fatchabad for post-mortem examination. Blood stained earth and two empty cartridges were also taken into custody. All these recoveries were effected in the presence of Kurra Ram and Bhim Sen.

3. The post-mortem examination on the body of Maman Ram was conducted by Dr. AS Chaudhry (PW 3) at Fatehabad on 16th July, 1983 at 6.00 p.m. and he had found the following ante mortem injuries on the body :

1. “There was a lacerated wound 1-1/2” diametre with inverted margins showing blackening at edges, situated at front of lower and of sternum over ziphi-sternum. On further exploration of wound, it led towards the left side obliquely upward and laterally, causing laceration of the heart, the left land had passed through another wound with averted margins on lateral side of left chest wall just below left arm-pit measuring 2-1/2" x 2-1/2" shown in the diagram.”

2. A lacerated wound with inverted margins measuring 6x2" on the medial and upper and of left upper arm. On dissection, there were laceration of muscles, vessel nerves and humerus bonewas badly, fractured in pieces. The would passed on lateral side of upper left arm, with averted margins, resulting in injury No. 4 measuring 7" x 2/1/2". There was skin tag hanging between injuries Nos. 3 and 4 in front, there were corresponding boles in the left sleeve of the shirt.

3. There were four bulges and four lacerated wounds situated on the back between and of scapula in midline in an area of about 6" in diametre. Wounds were of averted margins of size about 1/2" x 1/2" in oval shape, on dissection of the bulges, four pellets and 3 pieces of card board with marking “Tiger” were recovered and sealed in a bottle. On further exploration of ribs Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 at their junction with the vertabrae were fractured in pieces on left side. There were holes in the body of the vertabrae Nos. 2, 5 and 6 on left side with fracture of traneverse processes and laceration of the spinal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 1159

Cases Referred (3)