2016 Supreme(SC) 790

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. GOPALA GOWDA, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.
Bhagwan Jagannath Markad & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1516 of 2011
Decided On : 04-10-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
Burden of proof is always on prosecution. Accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty.
Minor discrepancies not touching the core of the case should be ignored.
“Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” has no application in India.
Common object of the members of unlawful assembly can be gathered from their conduct.
Not explaining injury to accused is not enough to reject the prosecution version.
Recoveries and Chemical Analyzer’s report only have corroborative value.
Every GD Entry or cryptic information cannot be treated as FIR.
Appellate court is fully empowered to review the evidence and to reach at its own conclusion.

Headnote:(a) Criminal jurisprudence – Burden of proof is always on prosecution – Accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty – Prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Accused is entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt – Degree of proof need not reach certainty but must carry a high degree of probability. (Para 18)

       (1990) 3 SCC 190 – Relied upon

       (b) Criminal trial –Appreciation of evidence – Assessment of truthfulness – Minor discrepancies not touching the core of the case should be ignored – Section 155 and 145, Evidence Act, 1872 – Court should sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth – Want of independent witnesses or unusual behavior of witnesses – Not enough to reject evidence – A witness being a close relative not enough to reject his testimony if otherwise credible – “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” – Has no application in India – Exaggeration to the rule of benefit of doubt can result in miscarriage of justice – Innocent should not be punished, at the same time, no guilty should escape. (Para 19, 20)

       (1999) 9 SCC 525; (2002) 8 SCC 381 – Relied upon

       (c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 149 – Common object – Can be gathered from conduct of the members of unlawful assembly. (Para 21)

       (2002) 8 SCC 381 – Relied upon

       (d) Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence – Evidence of eye witnesses consistent except some contradictions – Trial court wrongly rejected their evidence – Not explaining injury to accused – Not enough to reject the prosecution version. (Para 22, 23)

       (1990) 3 SCC 190; (2001) 6 SCC 145; (2012) 4 SCC 79 – Relied upon

       (e) Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence – Recoveries and Chemical Analyzer’s report only have corroborative value – Can be disregarded in view of credible evidence of eye witnesses – Non-examination of some witnesses is of no consequence – Prosecution establishing its case by credible evidence of eye witnesses – Trial court judgment held perverse. (Para 25)

       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 154 – Every GD Entry or cryptic information cannot be treated as FIR. (Para 26)

       (2012) 7 SCC 225; (2004) 12 SCC 336; (2001) 6 SCC 181; (2010) 4 SCC 429; (2008) 16 SCC 56 – Relied upon

       (2014) 2 SCC 1 – Distinguished

       (f) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378 – Appellate court fully empowered to review the evidence and to reach at its own conclusion – Trial court acquitting the accused persons on basis of trivial discrepancies – Held perverse – High Court rightly interfered. (Para 28, 30)

       (1974) 4 SCC 479; (1964) 8 SCR 133 – Relied upon

       (2000) 1 SCC 621; (2003) 10 SCC 700; (2004) 10 SCC 699; (2004) 13 SCC 30; (2013) 6 SCC 798; (2014) 2 SCC 1; (2016) 7 SCALE 444; (2012) 4 SCC 79; (2015) 4 SCC 387; (2011) 6 SSC 279; (2015) 1 SCC 323 – Referred

       (g) Criminal trial – Conviction – All five eye witnesses naming accused A1 to A7 – Not naming A10 and A11 (appellants 7 and 8) – Appellants 7 and 8 given benefit of doubt. (Para 32)

       Facts of the case:

       16 accused were tried for murder of one Bibhishan Vithoba Khadle and injuries to six persons. Trial court acquitted all of them.

       High Court upheld acquittal of accused Nos. 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16.

       Accused No.2 is reported to have died. Thus, eight appellants have filed these appeals.

       The High Court convicted all the eight accused under Sections 147, 149, 302 read with Sections 149, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life, apart from other lesser sentences which are to run concurrently and payment of fine, setting aside their acquittal by the trial court.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no error in the impugned judgment. However, appellants 7 and 8 are entitled to benefit of doubt.

       Result: Appeal partly allowed