2010 Supreme(SC) 918

2010 (7) Supreme 26
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma — Appellant
versus
State of Uttarakhand — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1699 of 2007
Decided on : 27-9-2010

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Evidence of a person does not become effaced from the record merely because he has turned hostile and his deposition must be examined more cautiously to find out as to what extent he has supported the case of the prosecution.
2. Circumstances which were not put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be used against him and have to be excluded from consideration
3. Every error or omission in compliance of the provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C., does not necessarily vitiate trial.
4. Absconding by itself is not conclusive proof of either of guilt or of a guilty conscience.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860- Sections 302 and 307-Prosecution of appellant for causing death of three persons and injuries to others ,members of his own family by firing at them-Conviction by Trial Court-Appeal-Dismissed by High Court-Appeal-Plea of appellant that none of the relevant incriminating pieces of circumstantial evidence had been put to the appellant by the court while examining him under Section 313 Cr.P.C- Held not putting questions regarding anyone of circumstances can not be held to be a serious irregularity inasmuch as the same may vitiate the conviction- More so, in the instant case, it had not materially prejudiced the appellant nor had it resulted in a miscarriage of justice- If the case was considered in the totality of the circumstances, also taking into consideration the gravity of the charges, appellant had killed his real brother, and his nephews, and injured his father and nephews (PW.1) and (PW.2) in broad day light- The FIR had been lodged promptly, naming the appellant as the person who committed the offence- All the eye-witnesses, including the injured witnesses, attributed the commission of the offence only to the appellant in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C- Held difficult to imagine that complainant and the eye- witnesses had all falsely named the appellant as being the person responsible for the offence at the initial stage itself-No cogent reasons to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by courts below- Appeal having no merit dismissed. (Paras 43 to 48)

        Criminal Trial-Testimony of Hostile Witness-Admissibility of-The fact that the witness was declared hostile at the instance of the public prosecutor and he was allowed to cross examine the witness furnishes no justification for rejecting en bloc the evidence of the Witness- However, the court has to be very careful, as prima facie, a witness who makes different statements at different times, has no regard for the truth- His evidence has to be read and considered as a whole with a view to find out whether any weight should be attached to it- The court should be slow to act on the testimony of such a witness; normally, it should look for corroboration to his testimony. (Para 17)

       Facts of the Case :

        Appellant was prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of three persons and injuries to others ,members of his own family by firing at them. Trial Court convicted appellant for saidoffences. Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.

        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court. Plea of appellant that None of the relevant incriminating pieces of circumstantial evidence had been put to the appellant by the court while examining him under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

       Findings of the Court :

        Held not putting questions regarding anyone of circumstances can not be held to be a serious irregularity inasmuch as the same may vitiate the conviction. More so, in the instant case, it had not materially prejudiced the appellant nor had it resulted in a miscarriage of justice. If the case was considered in the totality of the circumstances, also taking into consideration the gravity of the charges, appellant had killed his real brother, and his nephews, and injured his father and nephews (PW.1) and (PW.2) in broad day light. The FIR had been lodged promptly, naming the appellant asthe person who committed the offence. All the eye-witnesses, including the injured witnesses, attributed the commission of the offence only to the appellant in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Held it was difficult to imagine that complainant and the eye- witnesses had all falsely named the appellant as being the person responsible for the offence at the initial stage itself. No cogent reasons to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by courts below. Appeal having no merit was dismissed.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.