2024 Supreme(SC) 855

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJIV KHANNA, SANJAY KUMAR, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Rama Devi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2623-2631 of 2014, Criminal Appeal Nos. 2632-2640 of 2014
Decided On : 03-10-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Murder – Delay in forwarding FIR to jurisdictional Magistrate is not fatal to prosecution case – If investigation starts in right earnest and there is sufficient material on record to show that accused were named and pinpointed, prosecution case can be accepted when evidence implicates accused.
(2) In cases involving conflicts between rival gangs or groups, testimony of members from either side is admissible and relevant.
(3) Evidence of a hostile witness is not to be completely rejected, so as to exclude versions that support prosecution.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 307, 333, 355 and 379 read with Section 34 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 103(1), 109, 121(2), 133 and 303(1) read with Section 3(5)] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 419] – Murder, attempt to murder and theft – Common intention – Appeal against acquittal – Ocular version of witnesses should not be disregarded solely because weapon used in crime and vehicles allegedly used by accused were not located or seized by police – Delay in forwarding FIR to jurisdictional Magistrate is not fatal to prosecution case – There is explanation for delay in forwarding a copy of FIR to jurisdictional Magistrate in terms of Section 157 of Cr.P.C. – If investigation starts in right earnest and there is sufficient material on record to show that accused were named and pinpointed, prosecution case can be accepted when evidence implicates accused – If court finds witnesses to be truthful and credible, lack of cogent explanation for delay may not be regarded as detrimental – It is proven that in spite of number of people present, there was extensive firing and use of firearms with intent to kill – Charge under Section 307 of IPC is established and proved – However, charge of conspiracy is not substantiated – Impugned judgment passed by High Court set aside – Conviction and sentence as recorded by Trial Court partly affirmed and restored. (Paras 27, 30, 34, 43, 44 and 45)

(B) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Criminal background of a witness necessitates that courts approach their evidence with caution – Testimony of a witness with a chequered past cannot be dismissed as untruthful or uncreditworthy without considering surrounding facts and circumstances of case, including their presence at scene of offence – In cases involving conflicts between rival gangs or groups, testimony of members from either side is admissible and relevant – If court is convinced of veracity and truthfulness of such testimony, it may be considered – Courts typically assess broader context to determine if there is sufficient corroboration, as long as there are no valid reasons to discredit evidence – Crucial test is whether witness is truly an eyewitness and whether their testimony is credible – If their presence at the scene is established beyond doubt, their account of incident can be relied upon – Such evidence cannot be discarded merely on the grounds of criminal background. (Para 18)

(C) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus – Evidence of a hostile witness is not to be completely rejected, so as to exclude versions that support prosecution – Testimony of hostile witness is to be subjected to close scrutiny, enabling court to separate truth from falsehood, exaggerations and improvements – Only reliable evidence should be taken into consideration – Court is not denuded of its power to make appropriate assessment – Entire testimony of a hostile witness is discarded only when Judge, as a matter of prudence, finds the witness wholly discredited, warranting exclusion of evidence in toto – Creditworthy portions of testimony should be considered for the purpose of evidence in the case. (Para 22)

Facts of the case:

Impugned judgment of High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 24.07.2014 reverses Judgment of the trial court and acquits nine accused of charges punishable under Sections 302, 307, 333, 355 and 379, all read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959.

Findings of Court:

Mantu Tiwari (A-4) and Vijay Kumar Shukla @ Munna Shukla (A-8) are directed to surrender within two weeks from today to concerned jail authorities/court to serve the remainder of their respective sentences. In case of failure to surrender, authorities shall take appropriate measures to arrest and detain them in accordance with law.

Result : Appeals partially allowed.