1. Massacre involving arson and multiple murders — Convictions under Sections 148, 302/149, and 436/149 of the Indian Penal Code — Appeal against conviction. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1993 Supreme(SC) 1114
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.
Govind and others, Appellants
Versus
State of M.P., Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 224 of 1988,
D/- 25-11-1993.
Important Points
Omissions in police statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. do not necessarily invalidate eye-witness testimony. However, convictions based solely on dock identification without prior identification parades or naming in early statements are unsafe, whereas consistent identification and specific overt acts justify conviction.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 302/149, 436 and 148 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 107/116 and 164 - SC (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act - Section 2 – Offence of murder – Rioting,armed with deadly weapons - Charged - A gruesome massacre took place on evening 14 persons, men, women, children and even infants belonging to a Satnami family (scheduled caste) of one were killed - Their house was set on fire - Inmates who were trying to flee, were caught, killed and thrown into the raging flames - Next morning when police party arrived, six charred bodies were recovered from burnt house - Police also found seven partly burnt and brutally cut bodies lying scattered near house - Later charred skull and bones of one more body were recovered from house - One died during pendency of trial - Ultimately 41 accused stood trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Durg - Case mainly rested on the evidence of P.W. 7 and P.W. 8, two ladies eye-witnesses who were also members of that unfortunate family - Trial Court was not prepared to place reliance on their evidence and accordingly acquitted all accused - State filed an appeal against the order of acquittal - Held, apart specific overt acts are attributed to most of them - P.W. 7 deposed that appellant No. 3, appellant No. 4, and appellant No. 14 entered the house along with others - Appellant No. 6 was throwing down Paira from heap kept in courtyard - Appellant No. 1 poured kerosene - Appellant No. 2 and appellant No. 13, were sprinkling kerosene - Appellant No. 11 was setting fire to kerosene sprinkled - When deceased jumped out from house, appellant No. 12 attacked him with, Appellant No. 5, appellant No. 10, , appellant No. 11 and appellant No. 13 chased one of the deceased - Learned counsel, however submitted that appellant No. 8 was seen going in a cart along with two other injured - Therefore he could not have participated in occurrence - From records, Court find it difficult to separate incident in which appellant No. 8 and two other received injuries from present one. P.W. 7 has attributed specific overt acts to appellant No. 8 - Therefore Court cannot separate his case - Learned counsel also submitted that there is evidence of P.Ws. 2, 19 and 43 that appellants Nos.1 and 3 were witnessing along with appellant No. 10 and that it was appellant No. 1 who was organising in neighbouring village - Therefore they could not have gone to scene of occurrence and participated in same - Same is corroborated by evidence of P.W. 8 - In result appeal is allowed so far as appellants Nos. 7, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 21 are concerned and dismissed in respect of appellants Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 - Order accordingly.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
C.L.SAHU, R.L.Kohli, RANDHIR JAIN, S.K.Gambhir, U.N.BACHHAVAT, U.P.SINGH, VIVEK GAMBHIR
C.L.SAHU, R.L.Kohli, RANDHIR JAIN, S.K.Gambhir, U.N.BACHHAVAT, U.P.SINGH, VIVEK GAMBHIR
Table of Contents
2. Reliability of eye-witnesses — Omissions in police statements — Alibi claims — Validity of dock identification without a formal identification parade. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 )
3. Omissions in statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC do not automatically invalidate eye-witness testimony; dock identification without a parade is insufficient for conviction. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
4. Conviction based on eye-witness testimony requires consistency and specific overt acts; dock identification without a prior identification parade is unsafe for conviction. (Para 6 )
5. Appeal allowed for certain appellants and dismissed for others, upholding convictions for those identified by multiple witnesses with specific overt acts. (Para 7 )
6. Does the failure of an eye-witness to mention all details in statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC justify rejecting their evidence?
No. Omissions in earlier police statements are not necessarily grounds to reject evidence, especially in ghastly occurrences, as investigating officers may have added names the witness only knew by face. (Para 4 )
7. Is identification of an accused for the first time in court (dock identification) sufficient for conviction in the absence of an identification parade?
No. Where no identification parade was held and names were not provided in earlier statements, it is unsafe to convict based solely on identification in court. (Para 6 )
8. How does the court view minor variations in the testimonies of multiple eye-witnesses?
Minor variations in general particulars between eye-witnesses often indicate that the witnesses are not tutored, thereby supporting the credibility of their evidence. (Para 5 )
9. Can an alibi be successfully pleaded if the witness attributes specific overt acts to the accused and the location of the alibi is nearby?
No. If the alleged alibi location is nearby and the witness attributes specific overt acts corroborated by others, the alibi claim is insufficient to negate participation. (Para 7 )
Judgment
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. - The occurrence, which is the subject matter of this case, manifests how savage and barbarous human beings can be and to what extent they can be cruel with utter disregard to human life. Kestara is a small village in Durg District with a population of about 300 people. A gruesome massacre took place on the evening of 24-1-82. 14 persons, men, women, children and even infants belonging to a Satnami family (scheduled caste) of one Gangaprasad were killed. Their house was set on fire. The inmates who were trying to flee, were caught, killed and thrown into the raging flames. The next morning when the police party arrived, six charred bodies were recovered from the burnt house. The police also found seven partly burnt and brutally cut bodies lying scattered near the house. Later charred skull and bones of one more body were recovered from the house. In respect of this occurrence 44 persons mostly belonging to Rawat caste and some others were prosecuted and two of them were found absconding. One Sadru died during the pendency of the trial. Ultimately 41 accused stood the trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Durg. The case mainly rested on the evidence of P.W. 7 Bhawanibai and P.W. 8 Bhagabai, the two ladies eye-witnesses who were also members of that unfortunate family. The trial Court was not prepared to place reliance on their evidence and accordingly acquitted all the accused. The State filed an appeal against the order of acquittal. The High Court, however, refused to grant leave as against 10 accused. During the pendency of the State appeal, two accused namely Jhulu and Ghanaram. expired and the appeal stood abated as against them. As against the remaining accused, the High Court examined the appeal filed by the State and ultimately convicted 21 of them under Section 148 and sentenced each of them to undergo two years R. I. They were also convicted under Sections 302/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and they were further convicted u/Ss. 436/ 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to 10 years R. I. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The acquittal of remaining accused was confirmed by the High Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal under Section 2 of the SC (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act has been filed by the 21 convicted accused.
2. There was a longstanding faction between the family of the deceased and the Rawats and Brahmins of village Kestara. There were criminal as well as other cases filed against the family of the deceased Gangaprasad as well as against Rawats and Brahmins. Proceedings u/Ss. 107/116, Cr. P.C. also were initiated against the adult male members of the deceased family and the Rawats. The fact about enmity between these two rival groups is not in dispute. Because of this enmity between family of the deceased Gangaprasad and the Rawats, there had been a fight between GangaPrasad and his brother on one hand and Ramdayal, Shivprasad and Bijeram on the other hand. As soon as Rawats and Brahmins of the Village learnt about this fight, they surrounded the house of deceased Gangaprasad. A hay-stack was kept outside the house and the house was set on fire by sprinkling kerosene and then throwing burning hay thereon. The inmates who tried to run away, were attacked one by one by sharp weapons. Some children and women were trapped inside the house and some were killed and then thrown into the flames. P.W. 2. Kotwar Bisahuram who had gone to the neighbouring village Mutpuri to hear Ramayan was informed about the fight and he rushed to Kestara. On the way he also saw the accused Ramdayal, Bijeram and Shivprasad being taken away in bullock carts. When he reached the village, he found that the house of Gangaprasad was in flames and he also saw the dead bodies. Immediately he set out for reporting the matter to the police station and reached the same at about 10.45 P.M. and lodged the report. A
