IMPORTANT POINT
When prosecution is guilty of introducing false facts which have considerably shaken the credibility of the prosecution case, no interference is called for with the view taken by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 302/149, 379, 148 and 147-Arms Act-Section 27-Acquittal for the offences by the High Court-Appeal against-Respondents 1 to 13 were prosecuted for killing eight persons including Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat-Political rivalry alleged-All eight deceased were proceeding to Court in a jeep driven by the Mukhiya when they were allegedly attacked by a group of persons who were variously armed with guns, rifles, pasuli etc.-Prosecution case that a shot fired by respondent hit Mukhiya as a result of which vehicle went out of control and landed in an agricultural field-They were then fired by members of the mob-Six of them died at the spot while the two injured victims succumbed to their injuries-According to prosecution ten of the witnesses had witnessed the occurrence-However, when IO visited place of occurrence, none of the persons present at the place claimed to be an eye witness-A false case concocted against respondents subsequently-FIR lodged with 2-1/2 hours of the incident by younger brother of deceased-Various discrepancies and inconsistencies found in evidence of eye witnesses by High Court-Whether High Court was justified in acquitting respondents-(Yes).
       Held : The High Court has observed that if this was an ordinary case of murder, the time taken to lodge the report could be explained by reason of the fact that it may take some time for the members of the family to recover from the shock, to console each other, to make other arrangements before proceeding to have the matter reported. This is not one such case because the occurrence had taken place at about 6.30 a.m. and the investigating officer having reached the place of occurrence at 7.20 a.m. there was no explanation for the delay in lodging the report thereafter, which was lodged at 9.00 a.m. If the investigating officer was present at the place of occurrence and the eye witnesses were also present they would not have kept quite till about 9.00 a.m. when, for the first time, PW-9, appeared before him and lodged the report. There is, therefore, serious doubt about the presence of the eye witnesses when the investigating officer came to the place of occurrence, and this also casts a serious doubt as to their presence at the time when the occurrence took place. It is not a case of the prosecution that after the occurrence the eye witnesses had gone else where. In fact the evidence of the investigating officer is to the effect that a large crowd had gathered at the place of occurrence. (Para 12)
       The case of the prosecution is that Lakhandeo respondent was one of the culprits and he also ran towards north alongwith all his companions. He, however, changed course and started running in a different direction only to be apprehended by the villagers coming from the side of village Gandhar. This story of the prosecution has been found to be untrue and for good reasons. As the High Court has observed, if really Lakhandeo had been apprehended by the villagers before the arrival of the police force he would have been immediately handed over to the police force if he had not been lynched earlier by the mob. This apart, there is direct evidence of two police officers who were present at the place of occurrence alongwith the investigating officer. They are DW-4 and DW-5, who were Inspector and Sub-Inspector of police respectively. They have deposed that at about 10.00 a.m. i.e. after one hour of the lodging of the report, there was a commotion and they found that one person was being assaulted by the villagers. They went to the rescue of that villager and found that the victim was Lakhandeo. Lakhandeo has pleaded that having come to know that his cousin, who also happens to be his co-brother may be one of the victims, he had rushed to the place of occurrence to find out about his welfare. However, when he came to the place of occurrence he was surrounded by the villagers and assaulted till he was rescued by the police party. The High Court has found that this part of the prosecution case is untrue and the defence of Lakhandeo appears to be truthful. To us also it appears that the prosecution is guilty of introducing false facts which have considerably shaken the credibility of the prosecution case. (Para 14)
       Similarly, PW-9 in the report had stated that the revolver of Mukhiya Keshari Nandan had been taken away by one of the accused. However, in the course of his deposition he had to admit that the revolver of Mukhiya Keshari Nandan was found under his pillow in the course of investigation. The High Court has adversely commented on the credibility of PW-9. We may notice that according to this witness respondent Naresh Yadav decapitated Mukhiya Keshari Nandan with Pasuh held by Lakhandeo. Apart from the fact that the presence of Lakhandeo has been found to be doubtful, none of the other witnesses has mentioned about Naresh Yadav beheading Mukhiya Keshari Nandan. This also shows the extent to which the informant could go in making out a false case because if what is stated was the fact, nine other eye witnesses noticing the same occurrence from different places could not have missed noticing this fact. (Para 15)
       Having considered all aspects of the matter we find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the High Court, and this being an appeal against acquittal, no interference is called for even if it was possible to take another view on the basis of the same evidence on record. However, we may hasten to add, having regard to the evidence on record, it is not possible to take any other view in the matter. (Para 16)

Judgement Key Points

Facts

On April 19, 1985, at about 6:30 a.m., Keshari Nandan Singh, the Mukhiya of Gandhar Gram Panchayat and a Congress Party member, was driving a jeep with seven others towards Jehanabad Court when it was attacked near Dhamapur More by a group armed with guns, rifles, pasuli, etc.; a shot allegedly fired by respondent Naresh Yadav hit the driver, causing the jeep to crash into a field, followed by further firing that killed six on the spot and two later in hospital. [1000084440003] (!) [1000084440004]
Prosecution claimed ten eyewitnesses (PWs 1,2,3,5,6,8,9 etc.) saw the incident, including respondent Naresh Yadav decapitating the Mukhiya with a pasuli from Lakhandeo Yadav and accused taking the Mukhiya's revolver and security officer's rifle; FIR lodged at 9:00 a.m. by PW-9 (brother of deceased Mukhiya), alleging political rivalry motive. [1000084440003] (!) [1000084440004][1000084440005]
Investigating officer (PW-12) reached scene at 7:20 a.m., found six bodies, headless body of Mukhiya in jeep, large crowd present; prepared inquest reports 7:30-8:45 a.m. with PW-1 signing as witness, but no one claimed eyewitness status; FIR delay unexplained despite police presence; PW-9 appeared only at 9:00 a.m. [1000084440004][1000084440011] (!)
Prosecution alleged Lakhandeo Yadav (respondent) apprehended by villagers while fleeing, but defence evidence (DW-4, DW-5) showed he arrived later at ~10:00 a.m. inquiring about relative victim, assaulted by crowd, rescued by police. [1000084440006][1000084440013] (!)
Trial court convicted Naresh Yadav under S.302 IPC (life), others under S.302/149 (life), some under S.148, S.27 Arms Act; High Court acquitted all on appeal due to eyewitness discrepancies, false prosecution facts, suggesting extremist involvement. [1000084440002][1000084440009]
PW-9 admitted in deposition Mukhiya's revolver found under his pillow, contradicting FIR theft claim; only PW-9 claimed decapitation by Naresh Yadav, uncorroborated; eyewitnesses same caste/village, not examined promptly or at all by IO. [1000084440014] (!) [1000084440009]

Ratio

In appeals against acquittal, no interference warranted with High Court's view if prosecution introduces false facts (e.g., fabricated apprehension of accused, contradictory weapon recovery) severely undermining credibility, even if another view possible on evidence. (!) [1000084440013][1000084440014][1000084440015] (!)
Unexplained FIR delay despite IO's early arrival (7:20 a.m.) at crowded scene casts doubt on eyewitness presence/version, as natural conduct demands immediate disclosure; not excused by shock in such circumstances with police present. [1000084440011] (!) [1000084440010]
Eyewitness credibility shattered by inconsistencies (e.g., unique claims uncorroborated, belated examination, community bias), false prosecution embellishments, supporting acquittal where direct evidence unreliable. [1000084440009][1000084440012][1000084440014] (!) (!)

JUDGMENT

B.P. Singh, J.-In these appeals the appellants impugn the common judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature for Patna in Criminal Appeal Nos. 313 of 1988, of 1988 and 318 of 1988 whereby the High Court acquitted respondents 1 to 13 of the charges variously levelled against them under Sections 302, 302/149, 379, 148 and 147 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

2. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1969, 1970 and 1971 of 1996 have been preferred by Bachhu Narain Singh, informant who was examined as PW-9 before the trial court. He happens to be the younger brother of one of the deceased Keshri Nandan Singh. Criminal Appeal Nos. 256, 257 and 258 of 1997 have been preferred by the State of Bihar against the acquittal of the aforesaid respondents by the impugned judgment and order.

3. Respondents 1 to 13 were put up for trial before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Case No. 57/86 /8/86. The trial court by its judgment and order dated June 6, 1988 found respondent Naresh Yadav guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Respondents 2 to 13 were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302/149 IPC and were also sentenced to imprisonment for life. All the respondents except Deva and Lakhandeo were also found guilty of the offence under Sections 148 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Respondents Deva and Lakhandeo were sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 IPC. Three appeals were preferred against the judgment and order of the trial court, namely, Criminal Appeal No. 313 of 1988 preferred by Lakhandeo Yadav ; Criminal Appeal No. 332 of 1988 preferred by Shiba Yadav and Criminal Appeal No. 318 of 1988 preferred by the remaining eleven accused. These appeals were initially heard by a Division Bench of the High Court but the learned Judges differed in their opinion - while N. S. Rao, J. was of the view that the appeals ought to be allowed and the respondents acquitted, S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J. was of the view that the appeals had no merit and ought to be dismissed. In view of the difference of opinion the matter was placed before D.P Sinha, J. in view of the provisions of Section 392 of the Cods of Criminal Procedure. The third Judge, after hearing the matter at length by his judgment and order of December 22, 1995 agreed with the view of N.S. Rao, J. and allowing the appeals acquitted respondents 1 to 13 of all the charges levelled against them. The appellants have impugned the aforesaid judgment and order of the High Court by special leave.

4. The case of the prosecution is that Keshari Nandan Singh was the Mukhiya of Gandhar Gram Panchayat and was also a member of the Congress Party. He was also practicing as an Advocate at Jehanabad. On April 19, 1985 while he was proceeding to the Jehanabad Court in a jeep driven by him accompanied by seven other persons including his personal security officer, his jeep was attacked by a group of persons who were variously armed with guns, rifles, Pasuli etc. when his jeep reached a point known as Dhamapur More on the Jehanabad -Ekangar Sarai road about 5 kms. from the police station. The case of the prosecution is that a shot fired by respondent Naresh Yadav hit him as a result of which the vehicle went out of control and landed in an agricultural field which was at a slightly lower level than the road. The occupants of the vehicle tried to escape but they were fired upon by the members of the mob as a result of which six of them died at the spot while two of them were seriously injured. The case of the prosecution is that the two injured victims were removed to the Jehanabad hospital where they succumbed to their injuries. According to the prosecution ten of the witnesses had witnessed the occurrence including PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9. PWs. 4, 7 and 11 were tendered for cross-examination at the trial. The post mortem exam

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 1322

IMPORTANT POINTWhen prosecution is guilty of introducing false facts which have considerably shaken the credibility of the prosecution case, no interference is called for with the view taken by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal.

Facts

Ratio

IMPORTANT POINT
When prosecution is guilty of introducing false facts which have considerably shaken the credibility of the prosecution case, no interference is called for with the view taken by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal.