2025 Supreme(SC) 1092

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Nimai Ghosh & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2013
Decided on : 23-01-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Murder – Once eyewitnesses do not recognize presence of chance witnesses at the time of occurrence, then their testimonies become unrealistic and concocted.
(2) Appreciation of evidence – Quality of evidence brought to prove guilt is a relevant factor and not quality of witnesses – Conduct of an eyewitness should be reflected like a real image in a mirror, thereby making his testimony reliable to prove guilt of accused.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 – Murder – Common intention – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – Brothers of deceased have not attempted to save him though indicating their presence as eyewitness on place of occurrence – In addition, they did not bring deceased to medical clinic which was situated nearby and deceased was brought to Doctor by a Constable – This creates doubt about presence of eyewitness on spot and also natural conduct of any prudent person whose brother has been killed – Once eyewitnesses do not recognize presence of chance witnesses at the time of occurrence, then their testimonies are unrealistic and concocted – Neither Pistol nor knife was recovered or seized – Bullet cover which was recovered and seized by police at place of incident cannot be tallied with weapon – Impugned Judgment set aside and Order of Trial Court restored. (Paras 15, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24)

(B) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – As a general rule, to prove case of prosecution, testimony of eyewitness primarily ought to be considered and be relied upon to prove guilt of accused – Testimony of eyewitness must be trustworthy, free from any kind of blemish and of sterling character to prove the incident, whereby case of prosecution may be proved beyond reasonable doubt – Quality of evidence brought to prove guilt is a relevant factor and not quality of witnesses – Testimony of those witnesses either proves the case as alleged by prosecution or otherwise – Sometimes, testimony of eyewitness is found unbelievable and can be discarded – To adjudge credibility of said testimony, relevant factor would be conduct of witness indicating natural reaction comparable to a prudent man, making conduct of witness realistic. (Para 16)

(C) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – If a friend or relative is accompanying deceased at the time of incident, action taken by witness is a relevant factor to save him – In addition, at the time of incident and immediately after commission of offence, what steps were taken by eyewitness to save life of deceased – Whether eyewitness left place of occurrence and returned place of incident simpliciter without furnishing information to police or intimating relatives/friends/near dear ones becomes relevant – In case, eyewitness does not convey any information about incident to anyone which is not expected from a prudent man, his conduct does not appear to be natural of a human being – Time of furnishing information to police at the earliest by eyewitness is one of relevant factors to dislodge plea of belated FIR – Conduct of an eyewitness should be reflected like a real image in a mirror, thereby making his testimony reliable to prove guilt of accused. (Para 17)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal has been preferred by accused-appellants challenging findings recorded by High Court of Jharkhand in judgment dated 02.08.2012 passed in Government Appeal (DB) No. 31 of 1998, convicting appellants for charges under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959, by setting-aside judgment of acquittal passed by Trial Court.

Findings of Court:

Findings as recorded by High Court are not based on due appreciation of records but on misreading of evidence which cannot be sustained and is hereby set- aside. Order of Trial Court stands restored.

Result : Appeal allowed.