2025 Supreme(SC) 74

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Goverdhan & Anr – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 2011
Decided on : 09-01-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Proof of fact – Law does not contemplate stitching pieces of evidence in a watertight manner, for standard of proof in a criminal case is not proof beyond all doubts but only beyond reasonable doubt.
(2) Though FIR is not a piece of substantive evidence, especially, when Complainant did not fully support contents of FIR, yet, it cannot be totally ignored and is to be treated as a relevant circumstance if same is proved by other prosecution witness.
(3) “Interested witness” and “related witness” – “Related” is not equivalent to “interested”.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 3 [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 2] – Proof of fact – Law does not contemplate stitching pieces of evidence in a watertight manner, for standard of proof in a criminal case is not proof beyond all doubts but only beyond reasonable doubt – If a clear picture emerges on piecing together all evidence which indicates beyond reasonable doubt of role played by accused in perpetration of crime, court holds accused criminally liable and punishes them under provisions of Penal Code, in contradistinction to requirement of proof based on preponderance of probabilities as in case of civil proceedings – Prime responsibility of court is to see whether this jigsaw puzzle has been properly placed by prosecution from which a clear picture emerges as to happening of incident with assigned role of accused as part of aforesaid jigsaw puzzle – Only, thereafter, role of accused in perpetrating offence can be properly ascribed and proved and accordingly, criminal liability fastened on accused – A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense – Concept of reasonable doubt has to be also understood in Indian context, keeping in mind social reality and this principle cannot be stretched beyond a reasonable limit to avoid generating a cynical view of law. (Paras 18, 20, 21, 23 and 26)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 34 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 103(1) read with Section 3(5)] – Murder – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – Though FIR is not a piece of substantive evidence, especially, when Complainant did not fully support contents of FIR, yet, it cannot be totally ignored and is to be treated as a relevant circumstance if same is proved by other prosecution witness – Informant who was examined by prosecution as an eyewitness, turned hostile – Merely because witnesses turn hostile does not necessarily mean that their evidence has to be thrown out entirely and what is supportive of prosecution certainly be used – Scene of crime was in a rural area and witness being rustic, their evidence has to be appreciated in light of behavioural pattern in rural environment – While dealing with evidence of witnesses who are rustic, because of minor inconsistencies, evidence should not be ignored – Though mere mention of names of appellants in medical record may not be the basis to implicate appellants, yet, it provides circumstances in which victim came to be brought to hospital and lends credence to truthfulness of contents of FIR in which appellants were named as assailants – Since FIR was filed soon after incident occurred and names of appellants were again mentioned in medical record as assailants within a very short span of time, there was hardly any scope for fabrication of evidence and falsely implicating appellants in the case, as they were already named in FIR – Non recovery of weapon of crime is not fatal to prosecution case and is not sine qua non for conviction – Medical opinion remained unshaken, which supports prosecution case – Inspite of untruthful and evasive testimony of neighbours, prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – There appears to be no patent illegality in view taken by trial court and High Court – Appellants convicted under Part I of Section 304 IPC and sentenced to period already undergone by them and fine of Rs.50,000/- each imposed. (Paras 30, 34, 54, 55, 64, 65, 69, 70, 76, 78, 84, 89, 91 and 94)

(C) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – “Interested witness” and “related witness” – “Related” is not equivalent to “interested” – A witness may be called “interested” only when he derives some benefit from result of litigation – A witness who is a natural one and is only possible eyewitness in circumstances of a case cannot be said to be “interested” – In case of a related witness, Court may not treat his testimony as inherently tainted and needs to ensure only that evidence is inherently reliable, probable, cogent and consistent. (Para 80)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 30.11.2009 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 290/2002 whereby High Court upheld conviction and sentence imposed upon present two appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code while setting aside conviction of third accused and acquitting him.

Findings of Court:

In the event of appellants paying the amount as ordered, bail bonds shall stand discharged. In the event of non-payment, bail bonds shall stand discharged after undergoing default sentence.

Result : Appeal partly allowed.