IMPORTANT POINT
A cautious and close scrutiny of the evidence of chance witnesses should inform the approach of the Court.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302/34-Conviction for offence of murder-Appeal-Eye witnesses, being father of deceased and his friend, not reliable-PW3 and PW4, close relations were chance witnesses-PW3 s evidence and his version in FIR goes directly contrary to evidence of PWs 4 and 5 in regard to time of occurrence and knowledge about missing of his son-PW 3 and PW 4 were not illiterate persons, though living in a village-Non examination of witnesses who gathered on the spot immediately after the incident-Trial Court and the High Court did not consider certain material aspects apparent from the incident-PW3 and PW4 were introduced as eye witnesses only after the dead body was found-Conviction of appellant based on their evidence held unsustainable-Evidence Act, 1872-Section 3-Chance witnesses-Admissibility.
       Held : When we come to the actual account of P.Ws. 3 and 4 regarding the incident which they are supposed to have observed with the aid of moonlight, we have serious doubt whether P.Ws. 3 & 4 could have observed the details of attack in the manner in which they narrated. In view of the alleged threats, they dared not to go close to the actual spot of assault. In fact if they were in a position to go close to the spot, they would have made some endeavor to resist the attack. That is the natural course of human conduct. Therefore, standing at a respectable distance for fear of being assaulted, it is doubtful whether they were in a position to observe each and every detail of the alleged occurrence, that too in the moonlight. As far as P.W. 3 is concerned, there is any amount of doubt as regards his eye sight. While being examined in the Court, he admitted that he had weak eye sight and could not tell whether any person was sitting near the wall or on his right side. P.W. 4 stated that P.W. 3 got his eye operation done after the incident. In all probability, eye sight problem would have been there even at the time of the incident which was 3 years earlier. Be that as it may, considering the situation and other circumstances it is doubtful whether P.Ws. 3 & 4 would be in a position to give graphic details of the alleged incident. Their version in this regard cannot be considered to be credible. True, even in the absence of giving such details, if P.Ws. 3 & 4 had seen the accused attacking the victim and immediately thereafter found him dead, it would have been sufficient to establish the prosecution case. We have only adverted to the fact that P.Ws. 3 & 4 would not have been in a position to observe the details to demonstrate that they were prepared to sacrifice the truth to support the prosecution. (Para 12)
       The foregoing discussion leads us to conclude that the Trial Court and the High Court did not consider certain material aspects apparent from the evidence and there was almost a mechanical acceptance of the evidence of the two chance witnesses whose evidence should have been evaluated with greater care and caution. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.-Three persons including the appellant herein, were charged for the murder of Gurpreet Singh on the night of 30th January, 1994, at village Ranguwal. The appellant together with one Manjit Singh was charged under Section 302 IPC, read with Section 34 IPC. It appears that the second accused Manjit Singh has been absconding and the trial proceeded only against the appellant. The other accused, namely Sohan Singh, who was charged under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC, died during the course of trial. The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal.

2. The prosecution case, as revealed by the FIR lodged by Mohinder Singh, the father of the deceased and his deposition in Court is as under :

On the crucial date, when the informant (P.W. 3) returned to his house at about 7 p.m., his wife told him that their son Gurpreet Singh left the house at about 5 p.m. in the company of the two accused as the accused wanted his presence at Jorahan Village for settling the dispute between Jarnail Singh and Ranjit Singh (P.W. 4). As his son did not return till 7.30 p.m., Mohinder Singh (P.W. 3) decided to search for him and he first went to village Jorahan. Ranjit Singh (P.W. 4) also joined him in the search at Jorahan which according to the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 11) is at a distance of about 1.5 kms. from Ranguwal. Not finding him there, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 were coming back to Village Ranguwal. It was about 10 p.m. (9 or 9.15 p.m. as per the deposition) when they reached the Primary School at Ranguwal. They witnessed the attack on the deceased by the two accused in front of the Primary School building. The appellant placed a Pharna (scarf) around the neck of the deceased after pushing him down to the ground and he continued to press the neck with Pharna. The other accused namely, Manjit Singh took out knife from his pocket and inflicted injuries on the face of the deceased. At that stage P.Ws. 3 and 4 raised hue and cry. They were warned and threatened to leave the place. Soon after the accused left the place, P.Ws. 3 and 4 were able to go to the spot and noticed that Gurpreet Singh succumbed to the injuries. P.W. 3 claimed to have witnessed the occurrence in moonlight and also with the aid of a torch. Some persons including Chowkidar Nahar Singh and his servant Pritam Singh came to the spot immediately after the occurrence. Leaving them with the dead body, P.Ws. 3 and 4 set out to the police station on motorcycle (moped) for reporting the matter.

3. The motive is said to be that the deceased was helping Ranjit Singh (P.W. 4) and the appellant was helping his cousin Jarnail Singh in a dispute relating to a plot in Village Joharan.

4. In comes out in evidence that P.W. 11 Sub Inspector of Police was found at the Nakabandi at a distance of about 2.5 kms. from the Village Ranguwal and he recorded the statement of P.W. 3 at 11.20 p.m. and sent the same to the Police Station through the Constable and the FIR was drawn up at 11.45 p.m. by the Head Constable. The inquest was held on the dead body on the same night at about 2 a.m. In the course of inquest it was found that there was a bluish mark on the neck apart from the injuries on the eyebrows and cheeks. The Pharna wrapped around the neck was also noticed, but it was not produced before the Court. The post mortem was conducted on 31.1.1994 at 10.30 a.m. by the Medical Officer (P.W. 10) attached to S.S.C. Khatran. He noticed five lacerated wounds and two incised wounds on the dead body. The Medical Officer (P.W.10), who was examined, stated that there was a bruise-reddish brown in colour on either side of the neck in the front. The neck was found tilted towards the left side, faecal matter was present in the Pyjama, hyoid bone was found fractured and the cartilage was broken. He stated that the deceased could

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 748

IMPORTANT POINTA cautious and close scrutiny of the evidence of chance witnesses should inform the approach of the Court.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
A cautious and close scrutiny of the evidence of chance witnesses should inform the approach of the Court.