2003 Supreme(SC) 666

2003(5) Supreme 173
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Chennai High Court)
Doraiswamy Raju & Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
Krishnan & Anr. -Appellants
versus
State Rep. by Inspector of Police -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1149 of 2002
With
Criminal Appeal No. 1226 of 2002
Decided on 28-7-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : K. Rajendra Choudhary, Senior Advocate, S. Nanda Kumar, V. Vijayan, Yogesh Khanna, Jitender Shankar, Anuj Srivastava, Advocate for RakeshK.Sharma, Advocate/Advocates.
For the Respondent : A.T.M. Sampath, P.N. Ramalingam and V. Balaji, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Where eye witness account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion opining to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302/34-Appellants assaulted deceased with aruval as deceased was alleged maintaining illicit relations with husband of A6-PW 1, father of deceased was accompanying deceased from place of her work at the time of incident and was sole eye witness who was also injured-Conviction by Trial Court and confirmed in appeal by High Court-Appeal-First information report was given almost immediately which ruled out possibility of deliberation to falsely implicate any person-Highly hypothetical imaginative story advanced by defence that PW1 and his family members killed deceased was too hollow to be accepted-Ocular evidence being cogent, credible and trustworthy, minor variance if any with medical evidence were not of any consequence-Concept of probability and proof beyond reasonable doubt-Conviction could not be interfered with. (Paras 16 to 19)

       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Medical evidence at variance with ocular evidence-It would be erroneous to accord undue primacy to hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude eyewitnesses account which had to be tested independently and not treated as the "variable" keeping the medical evidence as the constant.

       Held : It is trite that where the eye-witnesses account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. Witnesses, as Bentham said, are the eyes and ears of justice. Hence the importance and primacy of the quality of the trial process. Eye witnesses account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be credit-worthy; consistency with the undisputed facts the credit of the witnesses; their performance in the witness-box; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. (Para 20)

       (iii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt-Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from zest for abstract speculation-To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over emotional response-Reasonable doubt is a fair doubt based upon reason and common-sense and must grow out of evidence in the case.

       Held : Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over emotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused persons arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. The concepts of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common sense and, ultimately, on the trained intuitions of the judge. While the protection given by the criminal process to the accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimization of trivialities would make a mockery of administration of criminal justice. This position was illuminatingly stated by Venkatachalia, J. (as His Lordship then was) in State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal and Anr. (AIR 1988 SC 2154). (Paras 23 & 24)

       (iv) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 34-Conviction for offence of murder with aid of Section 34-Prior concert and prearranged plan is the foundation of common intention to establish liability and guilt-Though two of the four convict appellants had caused injuries on the back of deceased where as other two caused injuries on the head and only head injuries were found fatal but circumstances indicated common intention and conviction with aid of Section 34 called for no interference. (Paras 28 to 32)