SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Ratnavel Pandian and K. Jayachandra Reddy. JJ.
Chandra Mohan Tiwari & Anr. - Appellants
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 36 of 1979
Decided on 22.1.1992

IMPORTANT POINT
The right of appeal given under section 379, Criminal Procedure Code is in line with Art. 134(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution of India and with Section 2(a) & (b) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) of 1970 and the appeal lies as of right to the Supreme Court in a case where the High Court on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and convicted and sentenced him either to death or to imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more.

Headnote:(i) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 319 - Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act of 1970 Section 2 - Constitution of India. Art. 134 (l)(a) - Right of appeal of an accused person sentenced to imprisonment for life by the High Court after reversing the order of acquittal. Scope of interference in such appeal by the Supreme Court.

       Held: The resultant position of law from the conjoined reading of the above provisions of the Constitution, the Act of 1970 and the Code of Criminal Procedure is as follows:

       (1) Under sub-clause (a) of Article 134(1) an appeal lies as of right to the Supreme Court in a case where the High Court has reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death.

       (2) Under sub-clause (b) of Article 134(1) an appeal lies as of right to the Supreme Court in a case where the High Court has withdrawn the case for trial before itself from any court subordinate to its authority and sentenced him to death.

       (3) Under Section 2(a) of the Act of 1970 an appeal lies as of right to the Supreme Court in a case where the High Court has reversed an order of an acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a period of not less than 10 years.

       (4) Under Section 2(b) of the Act of1970 an appeal lies as of right to the Supreme Court in a case where the High Court has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a period of not less than 10 years.

       (5) Under Section 379 of the Code, which is now newly introduced in line with the Constitutional provisions of Article 134(1)(a) and (b) and with Section 2 of the Act of 1970, an appeal lies as of right to the Supreme Court in a case where the High Court has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and convicted and sentenced him either to death or to imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more.

       (6) In cases not covered by Article 134(1)(a) and (b) or Section 2(a) and (b) of the Act of 1970 or by Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure an appeal will lie only either on a certificate granted by the High Court under Article 134(1)(c) or by grant of special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court under Article 136.

       The right of appeal given under Section 379 of the Code is in line with Article 134(1)(a) and (b) and Section 2(a) and (b) of the Act of 1970. (Para 9)

       (ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 379 " Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 302/34 - Conviction recorded by High Court Appeal - Both oral and documentary evidence clearly establishing a strong motive for the appellants to put an end to the life of the deceased - Two eye witnesses to the occurrence, namely P.Ws. 5 & 6 being the parents of the deceased - They are the natural and probable eye witnesses as the incident had occurred in the odd hours inside their house - P.Ws. 1 and 2 came to the scene spot immediately after the occurrence - P.W. 1 who laid the First Information Report has mentioned the names of these two appellants as having been given by P.W. 6 at the scene immediately after the occurrence - F.I.R. has been lodged without any loss of time - Evidence of P.Ws. 5 & 6 which is corroborated by various other circumstances including the medical evidence is sufficient to record the conviction against the appellants . Prosecution has established that this preplanned & cold blooded murder, executed in very cowardly and dastardly manner at a helpless and defence-less young girl was perpetrated by the appellants - Convictions upheld.

       Held: There is overwhelming evidence both oral and documentary in clearly establishing a strong motive for the appellants/accused to put an end to the life of the deceased Saroj, who when examined before the Magistrate on 12.7.1991 had deposed under Ex. P.25 that she was kidnapped by both the appellants, wrongfully confined and subjected to sexual intercourse, though she initially lodged a report under Ex. D-15 on 9.8.1970 at the Hoshangabad police station against some other persons exculpating these two appellants. Earlier to her examination before the Magistrate the deceased lodged a report Ex. P.7 on 20.6.1972 at Budhni police station complaining that the second appellant had forcibly entered into the backyard of her house and on her raising a cry he took to his heels. The trial of the case against both the appellants before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Case Nos. 66 and 95 of 1972 under Sections 363, 366 and 376, I.P.C. was fixed for recording the evidence of the victim in that case, namely, the deceased herein from 21.8.1972. Both the appellants were on bail in the case of kidnapping and rape during the period of the occurrence in question which occurred on the intervening night of 20/21st August 1972. (Para 12)

       This is not a case solely based on circumstantial evidence, but on the other hand there are two eye-witnesses to the occurrence, namely, P.Ws. 5 and 6. The several impelling circumstances attending the case namely, the prior incident of kidnapping and rape, the conduct of the deceased Saroj in giving her statement under Ex. P.25 supporting the case of the prosecution registered on the complaint given by P.W. 1 at the instance of P.W. 6, the lodging of the complaint under Ex. P.7 by Saroj on 20.6.1972 against the second appellant and lastly the posting of the case for recording the evidence of Saroj on 21.8.1972 When taken in conjunction with the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6, unevasively and unerringly show that these two appellants had strong motive to snap the life threat of the victim so that she could not give evidence on the next day in the case of kidnapping and rape. (para 13)

       In spite of our best efforts and great deal of pondering over the matter, we find absolutely no reason, much less compelling reason to disagree with the conclusion of the High Court since the organic synthesis of the events, circumstances and facts of the case lead only to one conclusion, namely, that the prosecution has established that this preplanned and cold blooded murder, executed in very cowardly and dastardly manner at a helpless and defence-less young girl was perpetrated by the appellants. (para 30)

       We, quite apart from the reasons of the High Court, even on our independent assessment and evaluation of the evidence hold that the finding of the Trial Court is not reasonably sustainable and that the prosecution has satisfactorily proved the guilt of the accused beyond any shadow of doubt and consequently the judgment of the High Court does not call for any interference. (Para 31)

       (iii) Evidence - Interested witnesses are not necessarily false witnesses - However, the evidence of such witnesses must be subjected to close scrutiny - The court must assess the testimony of each important witness and indicate the reasons for accepting or rejecting it - No evidence should be at once disregarded simply because it came from interested parties.

       Held: After carefully scanning the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6, we unreservedly come to the conclusion that their evidence cannot be thrown overboard simply on the ground that their evidence is of the interested party because when the occurrence had taken place inside the house, that too at dead of night, it would be futile to expect of the prosecution to produce independent outsiders as witnesses. (para 19)

       The chronology of events narrated and the factual conspectus recounted by P.Ws. 5 and 6 are unshakable and the intrinsic quality of the evidence of these two witnesses compel this Court to implicitly rely on their testimony and to accept the same. In spite of the fact that these two P.Ws. have been subjected to intensive and incisive cross-examination, nothing tangible has been brought for discarding their testimony. No doubt, the earlier conduct of the appellants in kidnapping and forcibly raping their daughter, the victim should have inflicted deeper wounds in the minds of these two witnesses, but that cannot in any way destroy the value of their evidence which is co-gent and trustworthy. (Para 21)

       Further held: Being the parents of the victim, they would be the least disposed to falsely implicate the appellants or substitute them in place of the real culprits. In our considered opinion, whilst the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court abjuring the unimpeachable and reliable evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 on speculative reasons and unreasonable grounds, the contrary conclusion of the High Court based on the evolution of the evidence does not suffer from any illegality or manifest error or perversity nor is it erroneous. Further, on our independent analysis of the evidence we see absolutely no substantial and compelling reasons to brush aside the testimony of these two eye-witnesses and to take a contrary finding to that of the High Court (para 23)

       Result: Appeal dismissed.