IMPORTANT POINT
Where the eye witnesses account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302/149, 147 and 148-Accused convicted by trial Court for murder of a police constable-Accused six in number in two batches armed with sword, gupti etc. arrived at betel shop where deceased was present and assaulted him-Conviction was set aside by High Court holding that medical evidence was at variance with ocular evidence and that though place of occurrence was nearby police station, information was lodged after considerable delay-State appeal-High Court noted that names of witnesses did not appear in FIR but that by itself could not be a ground to doubt their evidence-It would be erroneous to accord undue primacy to hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude eye witness account-Where eye witnesses account was found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities could not accepted-A reasonable doubt would not be an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt but a fair doubt based upon reason-Prosecution gave reasons for not examining alleged independent witnesses and non-examination of some witnesses per se did not corrode vitality of prosecution case-Acquittal passed by High Court was unsustainable and conviction recorded by trial Court restored.
       Held : A bare perusal of the judgment of the High Court shows that it has disposed of the appeal in a rather casual manner. Most of the conclusions arrived at by the High Court are per se not on sound footing. The appellate Court will not abjure its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice by interfering where interference is imperative. Where doubt is based on irrelevant grounds or where the Court allows itself to be deflected by red herrings drawn across the track, or where the evidence accepted by the Trial Court is rejected by the High Court after a perfunctory consideration or where the baneful approach of the Court has resulted in vital and crucial evidence being ignored or for any such adequate reason, the Court should feel obliged to secure the ends of justice, to appease the judicial conscience, as it were. The High Court has noted that the names of witnesses do not appear in the first information report. That by itself cannot be a ground to doubt their evidence. (Para 7)
       It is trite that where the eye-witnesses account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. Witnesses, as Bentham said, are the eyes and ears of justice. Hence the importance and primacy of the quality of the trial process. Eye witnesses account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be credit-worthy; consistency with the undisputed facts; the credit of the witnesses; their performance in the witness-box; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. (Para 9)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-State of Madhya Pradesh calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, at Jabalpur directing acquittal of the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the accused ) on the ground that prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubts. Originally eight persons faced trial. Out of them co-accused Sunita and Kapoor Singh were acquitted. During the pendency of the trial one Ramkishore absconded. Two others Bhoora and Jabar Singh had died during trial. Trial Court convicted accused Komal Singh, Manni and Dharkole. During pendency of the appeal before this Court, accused Komal has died and the appeal stands abated so far as she is concerned. All the three accused were convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ). Appellant Manni was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 148 I.P.C. while the other two have been convicted for an offence punishable under section 147 I.P.C. Each one of them has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. Manni was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 148 I.P.C. while the other two with rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 147.

2. Prosecution Version in a nutshell is as follows:

One Hamid Khan (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was posted as a police constable in police station-Seodha. On the fateful day i.e. on 13.10.1989 at around 7 o clock in the evening an information was received in the police station that one Manni and his friends, who were wanted, were hiding in the house of one Mannu Teli. The deceased accompanied by head-constable Dayaram went in their search to the house of that Mannu Teli. At the house of Mannu Teli, his daughter Sunita met the police party and quarreled with them. Later on, on the same day at about 7.45 P.M. she provoked the present respondents and four others viz., Bhure, Jabar Singh, Ramkishore and Kapoor Singh by weeping before them and telling them that the deceased had insulted her. They all conspired to kill the deceased on that very day. Thereafter when the deceased Hamid Khan came to the betel shop of one Santosh in Seodha itself, those persons excluding Kapoor Singh came there in two batches of three each armed with sword, Gupti etc. After reaching near the shop of said Santosh, accused Bhure caught hold of the deceased and thereafter Jabbarsingh gave a blow by sword injuring the deceased below his left ear. Then accused Manni inflicted an injury below his right ear with a Gupti. As the deceased fell on ground, Kapoor Singh asked others to kill him. Accused Dharkole picking up a stone which was lying nearby; assaulted on the head of deceased. Kapoor Singh warned all those present there not to utter a word. Accused Komal thereafter kicked the deceased and all of them went away from there. However, one Ashok Sindhi informed head-constable Dayaram, who was on duty at that time at the Municipal House that some one has beaten one constable near the shop of Santosh. On receiving this information, head-constable Dayaram reached the spot and found the deceased lying seriously wounded. Suspecting the hands of present respondents and their friends in it because of the earlier attempt for their arrest, he informed his officer at police station. The Officer-in-charge of the police station thereafter reached the spot, inspected it and seized the blood stained and non-stained mud from the spot and the blood stained stone which was also lying nearby together with a wooden handle of Gupti. Subsequently, after his arrest accused Manni had led to the discovery of the remaining part of the Gupti, which was used by him in the crime. The deceased who was at that time only injured was immedi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 1371

IMPORTANT POINTWhere the eye witnesses account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive.

Cases Referred (4)

IMPORTANT POINT
Where the eye witnesses account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive.