Back
2010 (6) Supreme 193
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Harjit Singh Bedi and J.M. Panchal, JJ.
State of U.P. — Appellant
versus
Krishna Master & Ors. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1180 of 2004
Decided on : 3-8-2010
(b) Criminal trial – Minor discrepancies in the evidence are not fatal. (Para 8)
(c) Criminal trial – Evidence – A rustic witness is not expected to always have an alert mind and so have an idea of direction, area and distance with precision from which he had witnessed the incident – Non-examination of all witnesses is not always fatal. (Para 10)
AIR 1988 SC 1998 – Relied upon
(d) Criminal Trial – High Court erred in taking the view that it is inconceivable that a child of tender age would not be able to recapitulate facts in his memory witnessed by him long ago. (Para 13)
(e) Indian Evidence Act, 1881 – Section 134 – No particular number of witnesses shall be required for the proof of any fact – Reliance can be placed on the solitary statement of a witness if it is reliable and correct version of the occurrence. (Para 15)
(f) Indian Evidence Act, 1881 – Section 32 – Dying declaration – High Court erred in not believing the oral dying declaration given by the deceased to his brother. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
This is an appeal against acquittal of accused persons u/s 302 by the High Court reversing the conviction by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
High Court has acquitted respondents who were charged for commission of six murders in a casual and slipshod manner.
Result : Appeal allowed.
The legal case involves an appeal against an acquittal of respondents accused of multiple murders. The trial court initially convicted the respondents and sentenced them to capital punishment. However, the High Court reversed this decision, acquitting the respondents based on its assessment of the evidence, which it found to be unreliable and inconsistent. The Supreme Court reviewed this judgment, re-evaluating the evidence and the approach of the High Court.
Key points from the case include:
Witness Credibility and Evidence Evaluation: The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of properly appreciating oral evidence, especially from rustic or child witnesses. It highlighted that minor discrepancies are not necessarily fatal to credibility and that the overall ring of truth in testimony should be the guiding principle (!) (!) (!) .
Rejection of High Court’s Findings: The Court found that the High Court erred in disbelieving the testimonies of eyewitnesses, Jhabbulal and Madan Lal, on grounds that the witnesses were rustic, young children, or that their testimonies were inconsistent. The Court held that these reasons were unjustified and that the witnesses’ testimonies were consistent, reliable, and supported by other evidence, including physical evidence and the site plan (!) (!) (!) .
Lighting and Visibility: The Court rejected the High Court’s reasoning that the witnesses could not have seen the incident due to darkness, noting that electricity lights were present and corroborated by the site plan and other evidence. The Court found that the witnesses’ ability to see was reasonably established (!) .
Motive for the Crime: The Court determined that sufficient evidence demonstrated a motive rooted in family honor and previous threats, countering the High Court’s view that motive was fabricated during trial. The Court explained that omission of motive in the FIR does not diminish its relevance and that the evidence supported the existence of a motive (!) .
Oral Dying Declaration: The Court criticized the High Court for disbelieving the oral dying declaration made by the deceased, which implicated the respondents. It clarified that such declarations are admissible and can be relied upon, even if not recorded in the FIR, especially when they have a ring of truth and are consistent with other evidence (!) .
Reassessment of Evidence and Judgment: The Court concluded that the High Court’s reasons for disbelieving the witnesses were not supported by the record and that the evidence established the respondents’ involvement in the murders. It found the approach of the High Court to be cursory and unjustified (!) .
Sentence Revision: Given the long passage of time since the incident and the acquittal by the High Court, the Supreme Court deemed that the respondents should not be sentenced to death. Instead, it imposed life imprisonment and a fine, with compensation to the victim’s family (!) (!) .
Overall Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for each respondent, emphasizing the importance of a thorough and fair appraisal of evidence in criminal trials.
JUDGMENT
J.M. Panchal, J. —
1. The State of Uttar Pradesh has questioned legality of judgment dated April 12, 2002 rendered by Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No.574 of 2001 by which judgment dated February 20, 2001 passed by the learned Special Judge (EC Act)/Additional District Judge, Farrukhabad in Sessions Trial No.17 of 1992 convicting the three respondents herein under Section 302 IPC and sentencing each of them to death with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default RI for two years for commission of murder of six persons is reversed and they are acquitted.
2. The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under:
The incident in question took place on August 10/11, 1991. The first informant is one Jhabbulal. He, as well as the respondents, are residents of Village Lakhanpur, District, Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh. About one year before the date of incident, Sontara, daughter of the respondent No.1 had eloped with Amar Singh, son of Jhabbulal. On one day, Amar Singh was spotted in the village and on learning that Amar Singh was back in village, the respondents had made an attempt to find him out to assault him and to take revenge. However, Ramwati, wife of Guljari, had learnt about the plans of respondents. She was neighbour of Jhabbulal. Therefore, she had given prior intimation to Amar Singh about the ill designs of respondents to assault him. Thereupon Amar Singh had left the village and this is how his life was saved. Later on, the respondents had learnt that because of the intimation given by Ramwati, Amar Singh had left the village and he could not be targeted. Since then, the respondents were bearing a grudge against Ramwati. It may be mentioned that after 3-4 days Sontara and Amar Singh had returned to the village. It is the prosecution case that at that time, Guljari Lal, husband of Ramwati had suggested the Respondent No. 1, in presence of first informant Jhabbulal to get his daughter married to the son of Jhabbulal. Thereupon, respondent No.1 had taken exception and told Guljari Lal not to play with the honour of his family. Because of the suggestion made by Guljari Lal, the respondent No.1 was highly agitated and had animus against Guljari Lal and first informant, Jhabbulal.
Some 10 to 15 days prior to the date of incident, Sontara had again eloped with Amar Singh. Due to this reason the respondents had become restive and uneasy with the family of Jhabbu Lal and his neighbour Gulzari Lal. The respondent No.1, Sri Krishna Master had gone to meet Jhabbulal and told Jhabbulal that Sontara must come back to him by Sunday failing which no one in the world would be able to save him and family of Guljari. Because of the threat given by respondent No.1, Jhabbulal had gone to the residence of his relatives in search of his son and daughter of the respondent No.1, but he was unable to trace the missing boy and the girl.
3. On August 10, 1991, Ram Sewak, announced while sitting on Chabutra of Ram Sewak that, at all costs, the girl Sontara should come back. Otherwise, no one would be kept alive even for the name sake. Sontara did not come back to the village. In the midnight of August 10/11, 1991, at about 12 hours, the respondent No.1, i.e., Shrikrishna, the respondent No.2 Ram Sewak and the respondent No.3 Kishori carrying country made pistols in their hands entered the house of Guljarilal by jumping the southern wall of the house. After entering into the house of Guljari, the respondents started firing shots indiscriminately. Because of the gun shots, Guljari, Ramwati, wife of Guljari, Rakesh, Umesh and Dharmendra sons of Guljarilal, were injured. PW2 (Madan Lal) who was sleeping at the place of incident, got up after hearing gun shots and hid himself under the cot. He witnessed the whole incident from there. First Informant Jhabbulal and his wife Lilawati, on seeing this ghastly incident, left their house and while making hue and cry entered the house of Khemkaran. The respondents after killing Guljari and his fami
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
