2016 Supreme(SC) 852

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, AMITAVA ROY, JJ.
HARBEER SINGH & ANOTHER – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
SHEESHPAL & OTHERS – RESPONDENTS
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1624-1625 of 2013, 217-218 of 2013
Decided On : 20-10-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
Findings of fact by High Court cannot be interfered unless the High Court ‘acted perversely or otherwise improperly’.
Possibility of taking another view is not a ground for reversing an order of acquittal.
Burden of proving the case beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution. It never shifts.
If two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view favourable to the accused should be adopted.
Although every improvement is not fatal to the prosecution case, defence may take advantage of an improvement which creates serious doubt about truthfulness or credibility of a witness.
Delay in recording statement u/s 161 would cast a doubt upon prosecution case if witnesses were available but statements were not recorded.
Testimony of an interested witness cannot be relied unless corroborated by independent witness. However, corroboration by independent witnesses is not indispensable.
Prosecution is not bound to produce all witnesses.
Evidence of chance witnesses ought to be discarded.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal against acquittal – No interference with the appreciation of evidence or on findings of fact unless the High Court ‘acted perversely or otherwise improperly’ – Possibility of taking another view not a ground for reversing an order of acquittal. (Para 9, 10)

       (1972) 1 SCC 249 – Relied upon

       (1975) 3 SCC 167; (1979) 3 SCC 1; (1980) Supp. SCC 160; (2003) 9 SCC 468; (2009) 4 SCC 271; (2010) 3 SCC 721; (2012) 5 SCC 171; (2013) 11 SCC 150 – Referred

       (b) Criminal jurisprudence – Burden of proving the case beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution – It never shifts – Further, if two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view favourable to the accused should be adopted. (Para 11)

       (1973) 2 SCC 808; (2003) 8 SCC 180; (2007) 4 SCC 415; (2015) 11 SCC 124; (2015) 11 SCC 242 – Referred

       (c) Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence – Every improvement is not fatal to the prosecution case – Defence may take advantage of an improvement which creates serious doubt about truthfulness or credibility of a witness. (Para 15)

       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 161 and section 162, Explanation – Omission to record a fact while recording statement of accused u/s 161 – Amounts to contradiction under Explanation to section 162 – Inordinate delay in recording statement u/s 161is fatal. (Para 15)

       (2004) 9 SCC 431; (2005) 10 SCC 216; (2010) 13 SCC 657; (2014) 12 SCC 473 – Referred

       (d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 161 – Delay in recording statement of witnesses – Not fatal if duly explained – However delay would cast a doubt upon prosecution case if witnesses were available but statements were not recorded. (Para 16, 17)

       (1978) 4 SCC 371 – Relied upon

       (1992) 3 SCC 106; (2002) 7 SCC 334; (2004) 13 SCC 279; (2010) 6 SCC 1; (1971) 3 SCC 192; (2003) 10 SCC 670; (2005) 3 SCC 68 – Referred

       (e) Criminal trial – Interested witness – Testimony cannot be relied unless corroborated by independent witness – However, corroboration by independent witnesses is not indispensable. (Para 18, 20)

       AIR 1965 SC 328 : (1964) 7 SCR 397 – Relied upon

       (f) Criminal trial – Examination of witnesses – Prosecution not bound to produce all witnesses. (Para 21)

       (1972) 3 SCC 79 – Relied upon

       (g) Criminal trial – Chance witness – In the habit of appearing suddenly on the scene when something is happening and then disappearing after noticing the occurrence about which they are called later on to give evidence – Evidence of such witnesses ought to be discarded. (Para 23, 24)

       AIR 1953 SC 459; (2003) 12 SCC 377; (2004) 10 SCC 632; (2009) 9 SCC 719 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       On 21.12.1993, at 7.55 P.M., Bhagwara Ram, the brother of the deceased Balbir Singh, gave a written report at P.S. Kotwali Sikar, stating that on 21.12.1993 in the evening at about 6.00 P.M., when his younger brother Balbir (deceased) was returning to his house, two men were standing near the Dhaba of Shankar and he started talking to them. In the meantime, Sheeshpal (son of Khuba Ram) came from the side of Sikar driving his Jeep and with an intention to kill, hit Balbir and dragged him upto the Dhaba of Suresh as a result of which Balbir died on the spot. The owner of the Dhaba – Suresh Kumar chased them on his motorcycle. It was further stated that the act was committed by Sheeshpal in furtherance of his old enmity with Balbir in connivance with Bhanwarlal, Dhanvir, Mangal (sons of Khuba Ram) and Bhanwarlal’s brother-in-law Nemichand and Shiv Bhagwan of Village Gothura Tagalan. It is also mentioned in the written report that at the time of the incident, Sheeshpal was driving the jeep and Nemichand, Shiv Bhagwan, Rajendra and Prakash were with him in the Jeep.

       The Trial Court convicted the accused persons and sentenced them to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. They were also sentenced severally under various sections.

       The accused persons filed appeals before the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court and acquitted all the accused persons.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.