SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Online)(SC) 21

SUPREME COURT
A.M. Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi, JJ
State of Haryana – Appellant
Versus
Ram Singh – Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 78 of 1999 | Crl. Appeal No. 79 of 1999



The Supreme Court reaffirmed that medical evidence must be critically assessed against eyewitness testimony, especially in cases of acquittal where procedural errors arise.

Headnote:(A) Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 25, 26, and 27 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Acquittal in murder case - Medical evidence contradicts eyewitness testimony - Duty on prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Credibility of eyewitness under scrutiny due to interest - High Court's judgment questioned for misreading evidence. (Paras 12, 20)

Facts of the case:
The case involves the murder of Manphool by several accused, where issues of evidence, eyewitness credibility, and lack of forensic support were central to the prosecution's claims of guilt. The deceased's body was recovered days after the alleged crime, leading to questions about the timeline and credibility of witnesses, all closely connected to the deceased.

Findings of Court:
The court identified significant discrepancies between the medical evidence and witness statements, leading to doubts about the prosecution's case. The acquittal of one accused was based on procedural errors and the prevalence of interested witnesses amongst the testimonies. The High Court's approach in favoring prosecution without properly weighing contradictions was deemed incorrect.

Issues: The primary issues revolved around the inconsistencies between the medical reports and eyewitness accounts, questioning the reliability of the evidence provided by predominantly interested witnesses. The court also addressed procedural fairness in evaluating the defense's arguments.

Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court underscored the importance of examining medical evidence against eyewitness accounts more rigorously when procedural irregularities are present, swimming against the grain of the presumption of innocence when such discrepancies arise. The High Court's failure to consider key contradictions was adjudged a miscarriage of justice.

Result: The appeal by the State of Haryana was dismissed, and the findings favoring acquittal were upheld.

1 While it is true that the post mortem report by itself is not a substantive piece of evidence, but the evidence of the doctor conducting the post mortem can by no means be ascribed to be insignificant. The significance of the evidence of the doctor lies vis a vis the injuries appearing on the body of the deceased person and likely use of the weapon therefor and it would then be the prosecutor's duty and obligation to have the corroborative evidence available on record from the other prosecution witnesses.

2 These two criminal appeals being Crl. Appeal No. 78 of 1999 and Crl. Appeal No. 79 of 1999 arising from the same Judgment of the High Court against that of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar in Sessions Case No. 80 of 1992 in which (1) Bhajan Lal (2) Rai Sahab, (3) Ram Singh and (4) Ram Kumar faced trial. All the accused faced charge under S.302 IPC read with S.201 IPC and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar by his Judgment dated 9th/10th August, 1995 convicted Bhajan Lal under S.302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, whereas the accused Rai Sahab, Ram Singh and Ram Kumar were convicted under S.302/149 IPC and sentenced in the manner alike. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not convict any of the accused under S.201 IPC by reason of the conviction under S.302 IPC read with S.149 IPC. The case of the prosecution however, runs as below:-
Complainant - Budh Ram is the brother of Manphool (deceased). They are residents of village Chinder. On 22.1.1992, Budh Ram and Manphool went to the temple at about 6 a.m. and returned at about 6.15 a.m. When Manphool was ahead of Budh Ram by about 10 paces and had reached near the house of Kishan Lal, a jeep RJI-3407 was there and Rich Pal, a resident of Chinder and Appellant Bhajan Lal were standing near it, armed with guns. Appellant Rai Sahab was sitting on the driver seat, while Appellant Ram Kumar and Ram Singh alias Singha were also sitting by his side on the front seat. Accused Ram Kumar and Ram Sing, on seeing Manphool, stated that Manphool had won money in gambling dishonestly from Ram Singh, and that he should be taught a lesson for dishonesty. Rich Pal and Bhajan Lal fired a shot each from their respective guns, and as a result of receiving the shots, Manphool feel down. Complainant - Budh Ram took shelter in the temple out of fear. Dholu Ram, son of Manphool on hearing the report of the gunshot, reached there. Prosecution case further has been that immediately thereafter Ram Kumar and Singha alighted from the jeep and all four of them tied the body in a blanket and put the same in the jeep and then went away in their jeep after threatening the persons present at site. Complainant - Budh Ram informed his brother -- Ranjit and thereafter chased the jeep in a truck. They made a thorough search on the canals and roads at Badopal and Bhola etc. but did not find any clue. Therefore, Complainant - Budh Ram along with Dholu Ram went to Agroha Police Station, to lodge the report. The statement of Budh Ram was recorded at 3.05 p.m., which formed the basis of the FIR (Ex.-PF).

3 The Station House Officer SI Kishan Dutt being PW-12 in the examination-in-chief, inter alia, stated as below:-
"On 22.1.92 I was posted as SHO P.S. Agroha. On that day, Budh Ram came to me in the police station. He was accompanied by Dholu Ram. He made statement before me upon which I recorded FIR Ex. PF which was read over and explained to him to which he signed in token of its correctness. I recorded police proceedings on it, handed over one copy of FIR to him and obtained his signature. Then I left for the post and reached the place of occurrence alongwith Budh Ram and Dholu Ram. I lifted blood stained earth, 2-3 pieces of bones from the spot, which were converted into separate sealed parcels. Seal of KD was used. Seal after use was given to Dholu Ram PW. I lifted blood stained earth Ex.P. 12 and three pieces of bones Exs. P. 13/1-3 vide recovery memo Ex.PG, attested by Dh















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top