IMPORTANT POINT
High Court has proceeded mechanically to accept the evidence of prosecution in order to correct a well reasoned acquittal recorded by trial Court in this case.

Headnote:Criminal Trial-Offence of causing murder in furtherance of unlawful assembly-Trial Court acquitting-High Court revesting the acquittal-Appeal to Supreme Court-Apex Court finding presence of PW4 (eye witness) very doubtful-Circumstances creating serious doubt as to truthfulness of prosecution case-High Court mechanically accepting evidence-Result-Appeal allowed.
       Held : We do find substantial force in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants. We would not have taken serious note of certain minor discrepancies found in the evidence of PW-4 but for the fact that there are certain glaring suspicious circumstances creating serious doubts in our mind as to the actual presence of PW-4 at the time of the incident. (Para 6)
       Held further : From the above discussion of the prosecution case, we notice the following circumstances which, in our opinion, create serious doubts as to its truthfulness:-
        (i) The active role played by PW-4 even though admittedly she was a pardanashin lady, to the exclusion of her husband and mother-in-law by accompanying her father-in-law to the doctor at Dwarka then to the doctor at Bhatiya and onwards to Jamnagar;
        (ii) Absence of any blood stain on the person and clothes of PWs. 4 and 5 inspite of their holding the body of the victim and travelling with the victim in bullock-cart and tempo for long distance;
        (iii) Absence of any blood stained earth at the place of incident;
        (iv) Absence of any independent witness at the place of incident;
        (v) Non accompanying of the wife and son of the deceased;
        (vi) Non filing of complaint at the police outpost in the village;
        (vii) Serious discrepancies in the evidence of PW-3.
       The above omissions and discrepancies, in our opinion, are sufficient to create a reasonable doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution case. (Paras 7 & 8)
       From a perusal of the judgment of the High Court, we find that the abovesaid omissions and discrepancies have not been given due weight while appreciating the prosecution case by the High Court which, in our opinion, has proceeded mechanically to accept the evidence of the prosecution in spite of the fact that the trial court has taken into consideration all these circumstances and has given the benefit of doubt to the accused persons. For the reasons stated above, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court has erred in reversing the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, therefore, these appeals succeed. We set aside the judgment of the High Court and acquit the appellants. The appellants if in custody shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. If the appellants are on bail, their bailbonds shall stand discharged. (Paras 10 & 11)

JUDGMENT

Santosh Hegde, J.-The case of the prosecution against the appellants herein is that in view of some old enmity entertained by the appellants they along with another minor accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and waylaid one Samant Naran on 11th November; 1982 when the said person along with his daughter-in-law Bai Raji (PW-4) was going to Dwarka to consult a doctor in regard to the ailment of said PW-4. It is the prosecution case that all the accused attacked the deceased with axe and sticks consequent to which said Samant Naran suffered multiple bleeding injuries and fell down. The efforts of PW-4 to save her father-in -law went in vain and after the attack it is stated that all the accused persons ran away from the place of incident. PW-4 who shouted for help could only attract the attention of the father-in-law s brother by name Malde (PW-5) who happened to pass that way. The said PW-5 on hearing the cries of PW-4 came to the place of incident and noticing the condition of his brother went to his Wadi and brought a bullock cart in which with the help of PW-4 he put the injured Samant Naran and brought him to the village of the injured. It is the prosecution case that when the injured was brought to his village, his son, wife and other members of the family were present. From the said village, the injured was taken to village Bhatiya for treatment along with PW-3 who is another brother of the injured (who was in the village when the injured was brought there), PW-4 the daughter-in-law and PW-5 the other brother. At Bhatiya, the doctor who examined the injured advised further treatment at Jamnagar, therefore, the injured along with the said doctor, PWs. 3, 4 and 5 were taken in a tempo to Jamnagar but on the way the injured died, therefore, they decided to bring the body back to the village but on the way they stopped at Kalyanpur Police Station where PW-3 lodged a complaint. The Police after investigation arrested the accused, made some recoveries and on completion of the investigation, filed a charge-sheet against all the accused for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 read with Section 149 IPC before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar. The case of the minor was separated and was referred to the appropriate forum.

2. The learned Sessions Judge who held the trial came to the conclusion that the prosecution had not established the offences alleged against the accused and accordingly acquitted them of all the charges. On appeal by the State before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, the High Court on re-appreciation of the material on record reversed the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and convicted the appellants for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC as also for offences punishable under Sections 147 and 148 IPC. He awarded the sentence of imprisonment for life to the appellants.

3. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the appellants are before us in these appeals.

4. We have heard Shri Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Ms. Sumita Hazarika, learned counsel appearing for the State.

5. It is to be seen that the sole eye-witness to the incident in question is PW-4 who, as stated above, is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. The appellants have very seriously questioned the presence of this witness on more than one ground. Primarily, it is contended that PW-4 admittedly is a pardanashin lady and as is the custom in the area from which she hails, normally women are accompanied by other women when they go out of the house. Therefore, it is strange that in this particular case even though other woman like her mother-in-law was available to accompany her, she should have still gone with her father-in-law to see the doctor at Dwarka. It is also pointed out that her husband was also available in the house but he also did not accompany PW-4. It is then contended that from the topography of the place of inciden

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 363

IMPORTANT POINTHigh Court has proceeded mechanically to accept the evidence of prosecution in order to correct a well reasoned acquittal recorded by trial Court in this case.

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court has proceeded mechanically to accept the evidence of prosecution in order to correct a well reasoned acquittal recorded by trial Court in this case.