2006 Supreme(SC) 776

2006(8) Supreme 75
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Patna High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.
Ramjee Rai & Ors.—Appellants
versus
State of Bihar—Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1621 of 2005
Decided on 24-8-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : P.S. Mishra, Sr. Advocate, Dhruv Kumar Jha, Tathagat Harsh Vardhan, Upendra Mishra, Ravi Chandra Prakash and Manu Shanker Mishra, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Ms. Kirti Sinha (for Gopal Singh), Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. It is now a trite law that corpus delicti need not be proved. Discovery of the dead body is a rule of caution and not of law. In the event, there exists strong circumstantial evidence, a judgment of conviction can be recorded even in absence of the dead body.
2. Ordinarily the prosecution should examine all witnesses whose names have been disclosed in the chargesheet but the same cannot be said to be a rule having universal application. Each case has to be considered on its own facts.
3. Medical science has not achieved such perfection so as to enable a medical practitioner to categorically state in regard to the exact time of death.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302/34 rw/s 201—Murder committed in retaliation—Occurrence took place on a boat—Deceased and his brother, PW3 were forcibly taken on boat while they were cutting crops—After the boat had proceeded some distance, they started assaulting the deceased—PW3 managed to jump from the boat and started swimming towards the higher ground, shouting and crying for help—Deceased died as a result of assault on boat and his dead body was carried away which was recovered after five days—Evidence of eye witnesses convincing—Identification of dead body, though decomposed, duly proved—Whether trial Court as well the High Court were justified in convicting accused persons for offence u/s 302/34 and 201 IPC—(Yes)—Evidence of all the witnesses are more or less consistent—No case has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment.

       Held : PW-3 is the informant. The First Information Report was lodged at the earliest possible opportunity. The informant categorically stated that he not only saw the deceased being assaulted, he at the first opportunity jumped from the boat, swam across the Dhab and somehow escaped from the clutches of the Appellants. He categorically stated that he had gone to Akilpur, which was an out-post but the Officer-Incharge was not present there thence. He thereafter returned to his house and in the next morning came to the Danapur Police Station on a boat.(Para 9)

       The prosecution witnesses categorically stated about the whole incident. The occurrence took place on a boat. Out of two persons forcibly taken on the boat, PW-3 could escape. There were fourteen accused persons. They had inflicted injuries upon him. Post mortem suggests that sharp cutting weapons had been used. Two accused persons, as noticed hereinbefore, were held to be possessed of some cutting weapons. The Appellants came in a group. Some of them started assaulting the deceased with weapons in their hands. In a case of this nature, it was well nigh impossible for the first informant to pinpoint the exact overt acts committed by each of the accused persons individually.(Para 40)

       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302/34—Murder—Discovery of dead body—Rule of caution and not of law—Corpus delicti need not be proved—In the event, there exists strong circumstantial evidence, a judgment of conviction can be recorded even in absence of dead body.(Paras 22 to 24)

       (iii) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302/34—Murder—Examination of witnesses—Ordinarily prosecution should examine all witnesses whose names have been disclosed in the charge sheet—However, it cannot be said to be a rule having universal application—Each case has to be considered on its own facts—What is necessary for proving the prosecution case is not the quantity but quality of the evidence—When an offence is committed in a village owing to land dispute, independent witnesses may not come forward.(Paras 25 and 26)

       (iv) Evidence Act, 1872—Section 45—Medical evidence—Time of death—Medical science has not achieved such perfection so as to enable a medical practitioner to categorically state in regard to the exact time of death—Murder took place on a boat—Dead body was thrown in water—It remained under water for more than five days—Rigor mortis was absent—Dead body was fully decomposed—Soft tissues of some of the parts of the body had been eaten away by fish—In a case of this nature, it was difficult to pinpoint the exact time of death—Opinion of autopsy surgeon that death must have taken place 10 days prior to the post mortem examination—Prosecution case cannot be disbelieved on that ground.

       Held : A contention was raised that autopsy surgeon opined that the death must have taken place 10 days prior to the post mortem examination and in that view of the matter the prosecution case should be disbelieved. The murder allegedly took place on a boat. The dead body was thrown in the water. It remained under water for more than five days. Rigor mortis was absent and the body was fully decomposed. The soft tissues of some of the parts of the body had been eaten away by fish. (Para 36)

       Medical science has not achieved such perfection so as to enable a medical practitioner to categorically state in regard to the exact time of death. In a case of this nature, it was difficult to pinpoint the exact time of death. The autopsy surgeon told about the approximate time lag between the date of post mortem examination and the likely date of death. He did not explain the basis for arriving at his opinion. (Para 37)