1. Murder and rioting — Attack on persons traveling in a tractor using firearms and sharp weapons — Prosecution under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 302, IPC. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 1245
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
State Of Uttarakhand – Appellant
Versus
Darshan Singh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1856, 1857 of 2013
Decided on : 07-11-2019
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
Order of acquittal cannot be interfered without compelling reasons and merely becuas there can be another view possible.
Person holding inquest is not to enquire about who are the accused.
If medical evidence completely rules out possibility as per ocular evidence, medical evidence will prevail.
In case of material contradiction between evidence of different prosecution witnesses and ocular and medical evidence accused cannot be convicted.
Order of acquittal cannot be interfered without compelling reasons and merely becuas there can be another view possible.
Person holding inquest is not to enquire about who are the accused.
If medical evidence completely rules out possibility as per ocular evidence, medical evidence will prevail.
In case of material contradiction between evidence of different prosecution witnesses and ocular and medical evidence accused cannot be convicted.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Constitution of India - Article 136 - Acquittal by High Court - No interference unless compelling reasons - Also no interference merely another view of the matter if possible. (Para 22, 23)
(b) Code of criminal procedure, 1973 - Section 174 - Inquest - Person holding inquest - Not to enquire about who are the accused. (Para 38)
(c) Criminal trial - Ocular and medical evidence - Normally ocular evidence prevails - However, if medical evidence completely rules out possibility as per ocular evidence, medical evidence will prevail. (Para 41)
(d) Criminal trial - Prosecution must prove that accused have committed the crime - That they might have committed the crime is not enough - Instantly there are material contradiction between evidence of different witnesses and ocular and medical evidence - High court rightly acquitted the accused. (Para 57)
Facts of the case:
The Trial Court convicted Pahalwan Singh, Resham Singh, Daleep Singh, Veer Singh and Darshan Singh for offences under Sections 302 read with 148 and 149 of the IPC. Resham Singh and Darshan Singh were acquitted of the charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
The High Court, by the impugned order, has acquitted the accused.
Finding of the Court:
High Court rightly acquitted the accused.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Rahul Kaushik, Ashutosh Sharma, Rajeev K.Dubey, Ashiwan Mishra, Kamlendra Mishra, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):N. Annapoorani, Advocates
For the Appellant(s) :Rahul Kaushik, Ashutosh Sharma, Rajeev K.Dubey, Ashiwan Mishra, Kamlendra Mishra, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):N. Annapoorani, Advocates
Table of Contents
2. State contends ocular evidence prevails over medical evidence and recoveries corroborate the case — Accused argue lack of motive and inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence. (Para 8 , 9 )
3. Material contradictions between eyewitnesses and medical evidence regarding wound locations — Non-examination of key witnesses and discrepancies in the recovery of the body and tractor. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 )
4. Interference with High Court acquittal is justified only if the finding is vitiated by glaring infirmity or is perverse, not merely because another view is possible. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 )
5. Appeals dismissed — Judgment of acquittal by the High Court upheld. (Para 57 )
6. Under what circumstances can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's order of acquittal?
Interference is justified only when the High Court acts perversely, is deceived by fraud, or the finding is vitiated by glaring infirmity in evidence appraisal. Merely correcting errors of fact or law or the possibility of another view does not justify interference. (Para 22 , 23 )
7. How should courts resolve conflicts between ocular testimony and medical evidence in criminal trials?
Ocular testimony generally has primacy unless it is totally irreconcilable with medical evidence. However, if medical evidence completely rules out the possibility of the ocular version being true, the eyewitness account may be disbelieved. (Para 41 )
8. Does the recovery of weapons and FSL reports alone suffice to reverse a High Court's acquittal?
No, the recovery of weapons and FSL reports are not sufficient to overturn an acquittal if the rest of the prosecution's case is marred by material contradictions and inconsistencies. (Para 56 )
JUDGMENT :
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
1. Since these appeals involve the same impugned judgment of the High Court acquitting the respondents of offences under Section 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’, for short), we deem it fit to dispose of the same by a common judgment.
PROSECUTION CASE IN BRIEF
2. The complaint in this case, which led to the trial, was lodged by one Swarn Singh-PW1. The complaint in brief is as follows:
On 22.08.1992, when he, along with his father, mother and maternal uncle, were going on a tractor from Nanakmatta to their village and his father was driving the tractor, when the tractor reached one kilometre from their house, they found that a bullock cart has blocked their passage. The tractor stopped near the bullock cart. One of the accused-Pahalwan Singh appeared. The other accused, along with him, were hiding near a tree. He was having a sword in his hand. Resham Singh, who is the third respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 1857 of 2013, had a country-made pistol in his hands. Daleep Singh had a ballam (a sharp edged weapon), his son Jagir Singh carried a country-made pistol. Darshan Singh also had a country-made pistol. Veer Singh was having a sharp-edged weapon (campa). They started hurling abuses on the family of the complainant. Resham Singh fired with his country-made pistol. Pahalwan Singh and Darshan Singh fired with their country-made pistol, and Veer Singh Singh with his campa, inflicted blows on the complainant’s father-Singhara Singh. He fell from the tractor and died. On raising alarm, all the accused fled away on the bullock cart. The complainant, his father and maternal uncle did not dare to fight the assailants.
3. The First Information Report (FIR) came to be lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the IPC. The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 of the IPC. Separate charges were also framed under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Arms Act’, for short). PWs 1 to 6 were examined from the side of the prosecution. Statements of the accused were taken under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.PC.’, for short).
4. The Trial Court convicted Pahalwan Singh, Resham Singh, Daleep Singh, Veer Singh and Darshan Singh for offences under Sections 302 read with 148 and 149 of the IPC. Resham Singh and Darshan Singh were acquitted of the charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
5. The High Court, by the impugned order, has acquitted the accused. The judgment reveals that the following aspects weighed with the High Court in its decision to acquit the accused:
i. There were material variations in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2.
ii. PW2 was not a non-partisan witness. He is distantly related to the informant.
iii. PW4 is none other than maternal uncle referred to by the complainant as having travelled along with him on the tractor. He has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution version.
iv. The case of the prosecution that after the firing and the inflicting the wound injuries on the deceased, the accused fled away in the bullock cart, could not be believed.
v. PW1 deposed that the lights of the tractor were on. PW2, on the other hand, deposed that the bulb of the tractor was off.
vi. Injury no.4 was a gunshot wound on the left side of the back of the deceased.
vii. According to prosecution evidence, accused blocked the way of the tractor and accused fired while standing in front of the tractor. There was material inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence in this regard.
viii. It is noticed by the High Court that PW3-Doctor, in his evidence, does not support the case of the prosecution.
ix. The High Court noticed, according to the prosecution evidence, that the deceased was driving the tractor and his close relatives, viz., his wife, the complainant, who has been examined as PW1, and maternal uncle, were travelling along with the accused
