Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
Rameshji Amarsing Thakor – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1183 of 2016
Decided On : 13-09-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 114 – Murder and abetment – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – Exaggerated devotion to rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law – Trial Court had ignored deposition of prosecution witnesses and referred to very minor contradictions in support of its judgment of acquittal – Contradiction in number of injuries was not fatal to prosecution case – Nor can prosecution case altogether be negated because fatal injuries, in opinion of the autopsy surgeon could not have been caused by recovered knife – Eyewitness account is consistent that deceased was stabbed by appellant – Just because there were more injuries than ones narrated by eyewitness cannot negate prosecution version – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 7 and 9)
Facts of the case:
Appellant, after being acquitted by Trial Court, on appeal by State, was convicted by High Court for commission of offences under Sections 302 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case arises from killing of one Jayantibhai (deceased) in evening hours of 10.07.1995 with knife blows. In his statement supporting the FIR, PW1, brother of the deceased has attributed commission of the offence to appellant as also two other individuals who were arraigned as accused.
Findings of Court:
It is a fact that two other accused persons, against whom there were allegations of holding deceased at the time when the appellant was striking knife blows on the deceased, have not been convicted. They were given benefit of doubt by the High Court, while the High Court opined that presence of appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt. As there is no appeal by the state against the said judgment as regards the other two co-accused persons, we refrain from making any comment on that aspect of High Court judgment.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellant before us, after being acquitted by the Trial Court, on appeal by the State, was convicted by the High Court for commission of offences under Sections 302 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case arises from killing of one Jayantibhai (deceased) in the evening hours of 10.07.1995 with knife blows. In his statement supporting the FIR, PW-1, brother of the deceased has attributed commission of the offence to the appellant as also two other individuals who were arraigned as accused. They are the father and brother of the appellant. The prosecution case is that upon receiving knife injuries, the deceased had collapsed after running few paces. Subsequently, he was brought to his residence and thereafter taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. The autopsy surgeon found his death to have been caused by shock and hemorrhage due to stab injuries. He had identified altogether eight injuries on the body of the deceased, which in his opinion were ante-mortem.
2. The prosecution case is primarily founded on evidence of PW-2 (Parvatiben), who is presented by the prosecution as eyewitness. She happens to be a distant relative of the deceased. The other part of evidence on which prosecution has relied upon is dying declaration of the deceased, which was made before PW-2 and PW-3 (Shivaji), brother of the deceased, in response to the latter’s query about the identity of the assailant. PW-4 (Rameshji) and PW-5 (Laxmanji) have corroborated this. The Trial Court acquitted three individuals arraigned as accused mainly based on medical evidence and the reasoning of the Trial Court would appear from paragraph 17 of the judgment of the Trial Court. We reproduce the said paragraph below:
3. Mr. D.N. Ray, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that there were substantial inconsistencies and contradictions in the witnesses statements and the eyewitnesses herself, being a relative, was not a neutral person. He has also taken us through the part of the judgment in which the Trial Court found contradiction in the prosecution version as regards the manner in which the knife blows were inflicted as also identification of the assault weapon. His submission is that the medical evidence was clear that the knife which was muddamal 9 (the seized knife) could not have caused fatal injury. He also raised doubt on the authenticity of the dying declaration. The High Court held, reversing the Trial Court’s judgment:
Murder – Exaggerated devotion to rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, while minor contradictions in witness testimony should not undermine the core evidence substantiating the charges.
(1) Dying declaration – For a statement to be termed dying declaration, circumstances discussed/disclosed therein must have some proximate relation to actual occurrence – If a dying declaration inspi....
The appellate court emphasized that minor discrepancies in eyewitness testimony do not undermine overall reliability, and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The higher evidentiary value of injured eyewitness testimony and the principle that minor contradictions in eyewitness testimonies, which do not go to the root of the matter, cannot be considered mat....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; significant contradictions in eyewitness testimony can lead to acquittal.
The appellate court may reverse an acquittal if it determines the trial court's findings are perverse and unsupported by credible evidence, reaffirming the reliance on direct eyewitness testimony.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
