1. Unlawful assembly and attack resulting in death and injury — Conviction under Sections 302, 325 read with 149, and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1264
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.P.Mohapatra : K.T.Thomas
Jangir Singh: Chet Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Case No. : 284 of 1992
Date of Decision : 10/27/99
The testimony of a reliable injured witness, supported by prompt reporting and corroborating statements, cannot be discarded solely because another prosecution witness turns hostile.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 325, 148 and 149 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 157 - Murder and rioting - Reliability of an injured witness - Evidence of a witness who sustained multiple injuries during the occurrence and provided prompt information to the police is highly credible - It is not safe to discard the evidence of such a crucial witness based on the stance of a witness who turns hostile (Para 4).
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 157 - Admissibility of statements - Testimony of an injured witness corroborated in material particulars by persons to whom the incident was narrated immediately after the occurrence is admissible and adds confidence to the credit of the testimony (Para 7).
Facts of the case:
Five individuals formed an unlawful assembly and ambushed a man, attacking him with weapons, which resulted in his death. The man's wife, who attempted to rescue him, sustained several serious injuries and promptly informed the police. The trial court acquitted the accused, primarily because the wife's testimony did not agree with that of another eyewitness who turned hostile. The High Court subsequently reversed this decision and convicted the accused.
Findings of Court:
The court found the testimony of the injured witness to be highly probable and credible, noting that her injuries and the prompt filing of the first information report added significant weight to her version. The defense's theory that the injuries were sustained elsewhere was dismissed as far-fetched and illogical.
Issues: Whether the conviction of the accused can be sustained based on the testimony of an injured witness when another eyewitness turns hostile.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence of a reliable injured witness should not be jettisoned simply because another witness turns hostile. The presence of multiple injuries on the witness and her instinctive protective reaction toward her spouse probabilize her version of the events, especially when corroborated by prompt reporting and subsequent narrations to other witnesses.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Credibility of eyewitness testimony — Contention that injuries were sustained elsewhere and the witness falsely implicated the accused. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Reliability of an injured eyewitness — Prompt information and corroboration by subsequent narrations outweigh the testimony of a hostile witness. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
4. Testimony of an injured eyewitness, corroborated by prompt information and subsequent narrations under Section 157 of the Evidence Act, is sufficient for conviction. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 )
5. Appeals dismissed — Conviction and sentence upheld — Appellants directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence. (Para 8 , 9 )
6. How does the court treat the testimony of an injured eyewitness when contradicted by a hostile witness?
The court holds that the evidence of an injured eyewitness, who provides prompt information and whose version is probable, should not be discarded simply because a hostile witness contradicts them. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 )
7. Is the narration of an incident to other persons shortly after the occurrence admissible as corroboration?
Yes, such evidence is admissible under Section 157 of the Evidence Act to corroborate the testimony of a witness. (Para 7 )
8. How does the court evaluate the probability of a witness's conduct during a violent attack?
The court considers instinctive protective reactions, such as a wife attempting to rescue her husband, as highly probable conduct that explains the nature and extent of injuries sustained. (Para 6 )
(1) THE appellants are five in number and they have filed this appeal as of right. They were acquitted by the trial court but convicted by the High Court on appeal filed by the State, under Section 302, Section 325 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code besides the offence of rioting under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. On the first count they were each sentenced to imprisonment for life besides fine and to lesser sentences for the lesser offence.
(2) THE gist of the case against them is that all the five accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly on the evening of 24-10-1985 and lay in ambush waiting for Bahadur Singh (deceased) to come through the road and on seeing Bahadur Singh they all launched an attack with weapons like gandasa, takua and ghope. The wife of Bahadur Singh (Ranjit Kaur, PW 10) who accompanied her husband made a bid to rescue her husband from the onslaughts of the assailants, but she too was attacked by them. Bahadur Singh died at the spot. PW 10 (Ranjit Kaur) furnished first information to the police on the same evening on the basis of which FIR was registered by the police. Subsequently all the five accused were arrested and on the strength of the information elicited from 1st accused Chet Singh and third accused Ginder Singh weapons of offences were recovered from concealed places.
(3) THE most important witness in this case is PW 10 (Ranjit Kaur). The importance of her evidence is that no court can possibly hold that she would not have witnessed the occurrence, for she herself sustained as many as eight injuries, some of them serious, during the occurrence. The fact that she gave the police prompt information which has reached the Magistrate on the very same night adds further credence to her version. Added to that, she narrated the incident to PW 12 Deesha Singh and PW 13 Sadhu Singh (a chowkidar) who reached the spot soon after the occurrence.
(4) THE trial court did not place reliance on the evidence of PW 10 (Ranjit Kaur) principally on the ground that her evidence did not agree with the testimony of PW 11 (Joginder Singh). It must be pointed out that Joginder Singh was cited as an eyewitness and he turned hostile and the Public Prosecutor confronted him with his own previous statements and contradicted him. It is not safe to jettison the evidence of a witness like PW 10 (Ranjit Kaur) as important as she is in the syndrome of the facts of this case, with the aid of a hostile witnesss stance in the Court. Such a course adopted by the trial court had been rightly deprecated by the High Court.
(5) THE defence version was that PW 10 would have possibly sustained those injuries at some other place and at some other time and not when she was accompanying her husband at the place of occurrence. Such a suggestion is too unconvincing and very far-fetched. No court can give any weight to such a theory. Even the defence admitted that PW 10 sustained so many injuries as described by PW 1 Dr Magher Singh in his evidence. We are totally disinclined to countenance the contention that PW 10 would have absolved those who have attacked her and turned against the five accused falsely. Such a theory will not fit in with logic and common sense. But unfortunately that version was found acceptable to the trial court and therefore the High Court has rightly repelled it.
(6) WE are confident that PW 10 (Ranjit Kaur) was a witness to the occurrence and if so she was able to see the assailants whose identity she knew even earlier. It is an admitted fact that the assailants were ill-disposed to the deceased as that is stated as a reason for false implication. The incident happened at 4.00 p.m. and hence there can be no possible contention that there was paucity of light for PW 10 to identify the assailants. The fact that PW 10 has so many injuries would probabilise her version that when she found her husband in great danger being attacked by the assailants she threw h
