2013 Supreme(Guj) 192

GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Jhaveri & Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.J. Thaker
Arjunbhai Ramchandra Parte
Versus
State of Gujarat
Criminal Appeal No. 376 of 2004—Decided on 11/06/2013

Point in Issue :
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case conviction of appellant for murder of deceased just and proper.

Headnote:[Indian] Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860) — Section 302 — Murder — Deceased assaulted with deadly weapon — Conviction — Appreciation of evidence — Finding of — Sustainability — The prosecution case is mainly based on the evidence of three eye-witnesses to the incident — The presence of all the three eye witnesses at the place of occurrence has been proved by prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt — The evidence of the eye witnesses have been very clear and consistant — They have stood the cross examination and no suspicion arises in the way of the witnesses — When in the case it is proved that it was the appellants who was aggressive and the blood stains were found where the incident has occurred and the sword used by appellant and the cloths worn by him bears deceased blood group there remains no doubt that the appellant had committed the offence — On appreciating the evidence no infirmity is found in the prosecution case — There are minor contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses but they are minor and do not go to the root of the case — The prosecution has been able to prove case beyond all reasonable doubts hence conviction of appellant accused recorded under Section 302 IPC is just and proper based on medical evidence corroborated by ocular version — No interference required.

       Held :

       In this case, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant who was aggressive and the blood stains were found where the incident has occurred and even if this is a minor discrepancy, the major fact is that the sword used by the present appellant and the clothes worn by him, bears his blood group. [Para 14]

       The evidence of the eye-witness has been very consistent, clear and cogent. They have been corroborated by FIR and evidence of the other witnesses. Medical evidence also supports the same, and therefore, it cannot be said that when there is no evidence to show that other coaccused caused fatal injury, the appellant should be given benefit of doubt. In this case, his participation and his act are proved beyond reasonable doubt and he has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC. There is number of injuries on the victim, and in absence of any material to show that the present appellant-accused had received injuries during the incident and/or for private defence, cannot throw out the prosecution case. [Para 16]

       In the case on hand, where the trial Court has rightly assessed the evidence. For appreciating the evidence, the Court should read evidence as a whole. So read, if it appears to have a ring of truth, then discrepancies, inconsistencies, infirmities or deficiencies of minor nature not touching core of the case cannot be ground for rejecting the evidence the Court should sift the evidence to separate falsehood from truth. The Court should give due weight to appreciation of evidence made by trial court, as it has advantage of observing demeanour of witnesses and general tenor of the evidence. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and to observe his demeanour, the appellate Court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and unless the reasons are weighty and formidable, it would not be proper for the appellate Court to reject the evidence on the ground of variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. [Para 19]

       On scrutiny, Court has found that the conduct of the witness is not at all doubtful. The presence at the place of occurrence as an eye witness has been proved beyond suspicion. The said decision will not help the present appellant because there is no improper, unreliable or improbable evidence of a witness. All the three witnesses have stood the cross-examination. Court does not find any infirmities in the prosecution case and we find that no suspicion arises in the say of the witnesses. The scene of offence is also proved and on appreciating the evidence, no infirmity is found. The minor infirmities are there and they are what we would call is a minor contradiction which do not go to the root of the prosecution version and the same are to be ignored. In this case, there is no lacuna in the prosecution case. The credibility of the witnesses is established beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction recorded under Section 302 of IPC is just and proper which is based on medical evidence corroborated by ocular version. [Para 20]

       Law Laid Down :

       When it appears that prosecution has a ring of truth then discrepancies, inconsistencies, infirmities or deficiencies of minor nature not touching the core of the case can not ground for rejecting the evidence, Court should sift the evidence to separate falsehood from truth.