2016 Supreme(SC) 853

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, AMITAVA ROY, JJ.
YOGESH SINGH – APPELLANT
VERSUS
MAHABEER SINGH & OTHERS – RESPONDENTS
Criminal Appeal No. 1482 of 2013
Decided On : 20-10-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
Supreme Court will n pot ordinarily interfere with the appreciation of evidence or on findings of fact unless the High Court “acts perversely or otherwise improperly.”
The rule regarding the benefit of doubt does not warrant acquittal of the accused by resorting to surmises, conjectures or fanciful considerations.
Evidence of child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection. It must be adequately corroborated before acceptance.
Testimony of closely related witness requires careful scrutiny and appreciation before basing conviction on such evidence. It can be relied upon if truthful, cogent, credible and trustworthy.
Minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case.
Lapses in investigation does not invalidate the proceedings.
Delay in sending report to Magistratewill not invalidate prosecution story if FIR recorded and investigation started without unreasonable delay, there is no other infirmity, and no prejudice is caused to the accused.
Inquest report is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can only be looked into for testing veracity of witnesses of inquest.
Evidentiary value of medical evidence is only corroborative and not conclusive. In case of conflict, ocular evidence is preferred.
Motive loses its significance in case the direct evidence of witnesses are trustworthy.
Mere non-recovery of weapon is not fatal where there is ample unimpeachable ocular evidence.
Non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 313 does not entitle the accused to acquittal.
Otherwise credible testimony of eye-witnesses cannot be disbelieved on basis of the site plan.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal against acquittal – Supreme Court will n pot ordinarily interfere with the appreciation of evidence or on findings of fact unless the High Court “acts perversely or otherwise improperly” – Court may also interfere where the appreciation of evidence and finding is vitiated by any error of law of procedure or found contrary to the principles of natural justice, errors of record and misreading of the evidence. (Para 13, 14)

       (1972) 1 SCC 249; (2005) 6 SCC 211 – Relied upon

       (b) Criminal jurisprudence – Burden of proof to establish guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, and not all doubts – Lies on prosecution – Further, if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence – The view favourable to the accused should be adopted – But the rule regarding the benefit of doubt does not warrant acquittal of the accused by resorting to surmises, conjectures or fanciful considerations. (Para 15, 16, 17)

       (1988) 4 SCC 302; (2003) 7 SCC 56; (2008) 12 SCC 24; (2009) 11 SCC 690; (1973) 2 SCC 808; (2003) 8 SCC 180; (2007) 4 SCC 415; (2015) 11 SCC 124; (2015) 11 SCC 242; (1974) 3 SCC 277; (1973) 2 SCC 793 – Relied upon

       (c) Criminal trial – Evidence – Child witness – Must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection – It must be adequately corroborated before acceptance. (Para 22, 23)

       (1992) 4 SCC 225; 1993 Supp (3) SCC 667; (1996) 9 SCC 287; (1997) 5 SCC 341; (2000) 3 SCC 70; (2001) 9 SCC 129; (1998) 7 SCC 177 – Relied upon

       (2000) 3 SCC 70; (2004) 10 SCC 583; (2005) 3 SCC 689; (1999) 9 SCC 525; (2013) 4 SCC 607 – Distinguished

       (d) Criminal trial – Testimony of closely related witness – Such evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased – Requires careful scrutiny and appreciation before basing conviction on such evidence – Can be relied upon if truthful, cogent, credible and trustworthy. (Para 28)

       (1992) 4 SCC 225; 1993 Supp (3) SCC 667; (1996) 9 SCC 287; (1997) 5 SCC 341; (2001) 9 SCC 129; (1998) 7 SCC 177; AIR 1953 SC 364 : 1954 SCR 145; AIR 1977 SC 2274 : (1977) 4 SCC 452; (1981) 3 SCC 675; (2005) 10 SCC 498; (2001) 7 SCC 318; (2003) 1 SCC 456; (2011) 13 SCC 206; (2012) 10 SCC 256; (2012) 12 SCC 701; (2013) 15 SCC 298; (2015) 11 SCC 52 – Relied upon

       (e) Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence – Minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments – Do not affect the core of the prosecution case – Should not be a ground to reject prosecution evidence – Serious contradictions and omissions materially affect the case of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission. (Para 29)

       (1999) 8 SCC 649; (1999) 9 SCC 525; (2004) 9 SCC 186; (2010) 8 SCC 191; (2012) 4 SCC 124; (2012) 7 SCC 646; (2013) 12 SCC 796 – Relied upon

       (f) Criminal trial – Defective investigation – Lapses in investigation does not invalidate the proceedings – Court has to scrutinize the evidence on record de hors the defective investigation. (Para 30)

       (2010) 9 SCC 567 – Relied upon

       (g) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 157 – Delay in sending report to Magistrate – Will not invalidate prosecution story if FIR recorded and investigation started without unreasonable delay, there is no other infirmity, and no prejudice is caused to the accused. (Para 40)

       (1972) 2 SCC 640; (1976) 4 SCC 369; (2001) 7 SCC 318; (2002) 1 SCC 351; (2008) 16 SCC 372; (2010) 4 SCC 469; (2012) 6 SCC 107 – Relied upon

       (h) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 174 – Evidentiary value of inquest report – Inquest report not a substantive piece of evidence – Can only be looked into for testing veracity of witnesses of inquest – It is prepared merely to ascertain the apparent cause of death, namely, whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or caused by animals or machinery etc. and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument, the injuries on the body appear to have been inflicted. (Para 41)

       (1975) 4 SCC 153; (1991) 3 SCC 627; 1992 Supp (3) SCC 1; (2008) 4 SCC 605; (2000) 4 SCC 84; (2003) 2 SCC 518; (2006) 2 SCC 450; (2010) 10 SCC 374 – Relied upon

       (i) Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence – Ocular and medical evidence – Evidentiary value of medical evidence is only corroborative and not conclusive – In case of conflict, ocular evidence is preferred – Instantly no conflict between the two. (Para 43)

       (1983) 2 SCC 174; 1993 Supp (3) SCC 18; (1988) 4 SCC 302; (1999) 5 SCC 96; (2003) 5 SCC 223; (2003) 6 SCC 380; (2003) 7 SCC 56; (2006) 11 SCC 239; (2009) 11 SCC 566; (2009) 13 SCC 542; (2010) 10 SCC 259 (2011) 7 SCC 421 – Relied upon

       (j) Criminal trial – Motive – Direct evidence of witnesses trustworthy – Motive loses its significance. (Para 46)

       (1996) 9 SCC 40; (2003) 12 SCC 616; (2008) 16 SCC 73; (2010) 5 SCC 91; (2010) 12 SCC 91 – Relied upon

       (k) Criminal trial – Recovery of weapon – Mere non-recovery of weapon – Not fatal where there is ample unimpeachable ocular evidence. (Para 47)

       (2000) 9 SCC 82; (2011) 9 SCC 115; (2013) 12 SCC 746 – Relied upon

       (l) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313 – Purpose of section 313 is to meet requirement of natural justice – Non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 313 does not entitle the accused to acquittal. (Para 48, 49)

       (2013) 5 SCC 722; (2015) 1 SCC 496 – Relied upon

       (m) Criminal trial – Independent witness – Lack of independent witnesses – Not fatal to prosecution story. (Para 50, 51, 52)

       AIR 1965 SC 328 : (1964) 7 SCR 397; (1972) 3 SCC 79; 1988 Supp (1) SCC 241 – Relied upon

       (n) Criminal trial – Site plan – Otherwise credible testimony of eye-witnesses – Cannot be disbelieved on basis of the site plan. (Para 53)

       (2004) 13 SCC 279 – Relied upon

       (o) Criminal trial – Prosecution story – veracity – Deposition of witnesses about dragging body of deceased for 9 steps – Defence challenging accuracy – Alleging fabrication of prosecution story – Not tenable. (Para 54)

       (1999) 9 SCC 525 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       The deceased Mohan Singh, while going to his house after taking bath at the tube-well, along with his minor daughter Lajjawati was caught by the respondents mudetred him and severed his head.

       At the time of the incident Kalyan Singh, father of deceased, and Bani Singh were sitting at the tube well of Bani Singh situated nearby. On hearing the cries of deceased Mohan Singh and Lajjawati, these witnesses rushed to the place of incident. In order to dissuade Kalyan Singh and Bani Singh, the accused respondents Phal Singh and Harcharan fired in the air. Then the accused persons tried to take away the body of deceased Mohan Singh by dragging it for some distance. But due to the hue and cry raised by the eye-witnesses, the accused fled away from the place of incident.

       The Sessions Judge convicted six accused persons (respondents Nos.1 to 6 herein) for committing the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. They were also convicted severally under Sections 147, 148 & 379 of IPC. The accused Har Charan was not found guilty of the offences punishable under Section 148 or Section 302/149 of IPC and hence he was acquitted.

       The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the accused respondents and acquitted them of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment is not sustainable.

       Result: Appeal allowed.