Important Point
To discard the evidence of a witness on ground that he did not react in a particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic & unimaginative way.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Appellant convicted for having caused death of deceased by knife blows on the back & chest Pw1 & Pw2 were eye witnesses of occurrence — Appellant had asked deceased to buy some liquor for him & deceased refused to oblige which resulted in verbal altercation — Appellant went away & Come back assaulted deceased — Appeal — Contention that conduct of eye witnesses was unnatural as they had not disclosed genesis of incident to family members of deceased on same day or had not immediately reported matter to police — Scrutiny of evidence showed that both witnesses were natural & truthful — To discard evidence of a witness on ground that he did not react in a particular manner us to appreciate evidence in wholly unrealistic & unimaginative way — No fault in reasoning recorded to accepting their evidence — Evidence was corroborated by medical evidence & presence of blood on shift of appellant which appellant got recorded u/s.27 Evidence Act — Conviction was not liable to be interfered with.
       Held : We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the conduct of the eye-witnesses is unnatural as they had not disclosed the genesis of the incident to the members of the family of the deceased on the same day or they had not immediately reported the matter to the police. On scrutiny of the evidence of the eye-witnesses, we have no hesitation to hold that PWs-1 and 2 are natural and truthful witnesses. Their evidence is cogent, reliable and convincing and there is no good reason to disbelieve and discard their consistent and truthful version. It is well-settled that every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate the evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way. Therefore, the High Court has rightly re-appreciated the evidence of the eye-witnesses and we find no fault in the reasoning recorded by it. The evidence of the eye-witnesses finds corroboration from the medical evidence.
       We do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of the eye-witnesses needs to be discarded on the simple ground that they are interested witnesses.
       (Para 10 & 11)
       Held : The version of the eye-witnesses was further corroborated by the presence of blood of ‘B’ group on the shirt of the appellant, which was recovered at his instance on 27.11.1997 from his house in the presence of the panch witness Amiruddin Kazi (PW-3) in whose presence the disclosure statement (Exh. 39) was made by the appellant to the investigating officer. The bloodstained shirt was sent to the Chemical Analyst for analysis. The report of the Chemical Analyst would reveal that the shirt of the appellant was stained with blood of ‘B’ group matching with the blood group of the deceased. The appellant has cross- examined PW-3 at length, but he could not shatter the evidence of the panch witness to dislodge his evidence in regard to the recovery of blood-stained shirt at the instance of the appellant from his house pursuant to disclosure statement (Ex. 39) made by the appellant. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution for non-examination of the informant and other material witness does not merit acceptance. In the teeth of the reliable and convincing evidence, which has come on record, we have no other option but to accept the finding recorded and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court on reappraisal of the entire evidence on record to hold that it was the appellant and none else who has committed the murder of Dilip. The prosecution has been able to establish the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. None of the contentions raised by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant can be accepted.
       (Para 13)
       Held : In the teeth of the reliable and convincing evidence, which has come on record, we have no other option but to accept the finding recorded and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court on reappraisal of the entire evidence on record to hold that it was the appellant and none else who has committed the murder of Dilip. The prosecution has been able to establish the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. None of the contentions raised by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant can be accepted.
       As a result of the aforementioned discussion, this appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant is maintained.
       (Para 13 & 14)

JUDGMENT

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—

1.Umesh, the accused in Sessions Case No.15 of 1998 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Amravati, is the appellant before us.

2.The appellant was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) for committing the murder of Dilip Ganpatrao Shirbhate on 26.11.1997.

3.The broad facts giving rise to this appeal may be set out briefly.

4.The prosecution case is that on 26.11.1997 in the midnight Vasant Shankarrao Bijwe, resident of Vivekanand Colony, Warud, lodged a report (Ext. 32) at Warud Police Station, Sub-division Morshi, District Amravati, alleging that when he was sleeping in his house, one Anil Ramrao Gulhane, resident of Warud, came there and told him that Dilip Ganpatrao Shirbhate resident of Warud was found lying in injured condition near the shop of Patel situated near Bombay Lodge. Vasant Shankarrao Bijwe immediately went to the spot of occurrence and found Dilip Ganpatrao Shirbhate, his brother-in-law (wife’s brother) lying dead. He noticed injury on the chest of Dilip-the deceased. The clothes of the deceased were smeared with blood. Vasant Shankarrao Bijwe-informant along with one Baba alias Purushottam Marotrao Ingle went to the Police Station to lodge the report. Head Constable B. No.25 of Police Station Warud, Sub-division Morshi, District Amravati recorded First Information Report at 23:30 hrs. on 26.11.1997 against an unknown person under Section 302 of the IPC.

5.The Investigating Officer API Ashok PW-7 conducted the investigation of the crime. PW-7 had inspected the spot and prepared Panchnama. He sent the dead-body for autopsy. Statements of several witnesses were recorded at the spot. The appellant was arrested on 27.11.1997. During the interrogation of the appellant, he made statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in the presence of Keshav (PW-4) and Suresh (PW-5) about the concealment of knife in his house, which allegedly was used in the commission of the offence. On the basis of the said statement, knife was recovered. The appellant made another statement (Ext. 47) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in the presence of Amiruddin (PW-3), on the basis of which blood stained clothes worn by him at the time of the incident were seized from the house of the appellant. The seized articles were sent for chemical analysis.

6.After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC was filed against the appellant. In order to prove its accusations against the appellant, the prosecution examined in all seven witnesses, out of whom Anand Katole (PW-1) and Waman Nerkar (PW-2) were the eye-witnesses. The documents prepared during the investigation were also filed in support of the case. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied his involvement in the crime. His plea was that a false case has been registered against him. However, he led no defence evidence. Placing reliance on the evidence of the eye-witnesses and other evidence adduced on record, the appellant as noted above was found guilty. The appeal of the appellant against his conviction came to be dismissed by the High Court.

Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the High Court committed a serious error in appreciating the evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses and undue importance to the recovery of the weapon of offence (knife) has been given. It was urged that the High Court has failed to take cognizance of the fact that no motive has been attributed to the appellant for commission of the offence therefore, the appellant could not have been found guilty of the charge levelled against him. Learned counsel next submitted that non-examination of Vasant Shankarrao Bijwe, who allegedly lodged the First Information Report of the crime in the Police Station and owner of Sandeep Pan Shop, is fatal to the prosecution case and both these witnesses were intentionally withheld by the pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 145

Important PointTo discard the evidence of a witness on ground that he did not react in a particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic & unimaginative way.

Important Point
To discard the evidence of a witness on ground that he did not react in a particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic & unimaginative way.