2021 Supreme(SC) 781

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur)
L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Bhagchandra – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 255-256 of 2018
Decided on : 09-12-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Death sentence should not be imposed where accused is not a hardened criminal and there is possibility of his reformation.
(2) Appreciation of evidence – There are always normal discrepancies due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition, shock and horror at the time of occurrence.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 201 and 506B – Triple murder, disappearance of evidence and criminal intimidation – Death penalty – Minor discrepancies in evidence of prosecution witnesses are not of such a nature which would persuade Court to disbelieve their testimonies – Witnesses are rustic villagers and some inconsistencies in their depositions are bound to be there – Ocular evidence of eye witnesses is cogent, reliable and trustworthy – Ocular testimony of witnesses establishes guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt – Since present case is a case of direct evidence, even if prosecution has failed to prove other incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, it will not have effect on prosecution case – FIR fully corroborates ocular evidence of prosecution witnesses – Judgment of conviction upheld. (Paras 32, 35, 36, 38 and 39)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 354(3) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 201 and 506B – Triple murder, disappearance of evidence and criminal intimidation – Death penalty – Trial court had convicted appellant and imposed death penalty on very same day – From judgment of trial court, it does not appear that appellant was given a meaningful time and a real opportunity of hearing on question of sentence – It does not appear that courts below have drawn a balance sheet of mitigating and aggravating circumstances – Trial court as well as High Court has only taken into consideration crime but have not taken into consideration criminal, his state of mind, his socio-economic background etc. – Deceased as well as appellant are rustic villagers – In a property dispute, appellant has got done away with two of his siblings and a nephew – State has not placed on record any evidence to show that there is no possibility with respect to reformation or rehabilitation of convict – Appellant comes from a rural and economically poor background – There are no criminal antecedents – Appellant cannot be said to be a hardened criminal – This is first heinous offence committed by appellant – Certificate issued by Jail Superintendent shows that conduct of appellant during incarceration has been satisfactory – It cannot be said that there is no possibility of appellant being reformed and rehabilitated foreclosing alternative option of a lesser sentence and making imposition of death sentence imperative – Court inclined to convert sentence imposed on appellant from death to life – However, taking into consideration gruesome murder of two of his siblings and one nephew, appellant deserves rigorous imprisonment of 30 years – Conviction of appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 506B of IPC affirmed – However, death sentence awarded to appellant converted to life imprisonment for a period of 30 years. (Paras 43, 44, 45 and 46)

(C) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – What is required to be considered is whether evidence of witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth – Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching core of case, hypertechnical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from evidence, would not ordinarily permit rejection of evidence as a whole – Prosecution evidence may suffer from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there, but that is a shortcoming from which no criminal case is free – What is important is to see as to whether those inconsistencies go to root of matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof – There are always normal discrepancies due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition, shock and horror at the time of occurrence – It is duty of court to separate falsehood from truth in every case. (Para 31)

(D) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – In case of rustic witnesses, some inconsistencies and discrepancies are bound to be found – Inconsistencies in evidence of witnesses should not be blown out of proportion – To do so is to ignore hard realities of village life and give undeserved benefit to accused – Evidence of such witnesses has to be appreciated as a whole – A rustic witness is not expected to remember every small detail of incident and manner in which incident had happened – A witness is bound to face shock of untimely death of his near relatives. (Para 34)

Facts of the case:

Trial judge had awarded death sentence to the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC (3 counts) and 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment each for offences punishable under Sections 201 and 506B of IPC respectively. The trial judge has also made a reference to the High Court under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for confirmation of death penalty. Vide impugned judgment and order, the High Court confirmed the death penalty.

Findings of Court:

Even upon reappreciation of the evidence, it cannot be said that the trial court has committed an error in convicting appellant and the High Court in confirming the same.

Result : Appeals Partly allowed.