Rakesh & Another Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
J U D G M E N T
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.12.2006
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal Nos. 518
and 890 of 1997.
as explained by the prosecution have been that:
A. On 5.3.1996, on the day
of `Holi' at around 11.30 a.m., one Kailash @ Killu was assaulted by the appellants
alongwith another accused in front of the house of one Rama Tailor. Anil (PW.11),
nephew of the deceased, who had been following Kailash (deceased), raised an alarm
and the assailants were caught at the spot. Various persons gathered at the
place of occurrence but the assailants managed to flee. The injured Kailash was
taken to the hospital but succumbed to his injuries. In view of the above, an
FIR was lodged under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called
as `IPC') and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, within one hour of the incident
at 12.30 p.m., wherein both the appellants and other accused were named. In the
FIR it was also stated that two policemen, namely, Ramdas Havaldar and Pannalal
Sainik came at the scene and got the accused persons released from the mob and,
thus, they succeeded in running away.
B. Dr. R.K. Singhvi (PW.8),
conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased on the same day. In his
opinion, there were three incised wounds found on his body, one on the neck,
one on the chest and another in the abdomen. All the injuries had been caused
by sharp edged weapons and Kailash had died within three to six hours prior to conducting
the post-mortem examination.
C. During the course of
investigation, the appellants were arrested and the weapons used in the offence
were recovered on their disclosure statements. After concluding the
investigation, chargesheet was filed.
D. The case was committed
for Sessions trial. The prosecution examined a large number of witnesses in
support of its case. One Halle (DW.1) was examined in defence and after
conclusion of the trial, all the three accused were convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302 IPC vide judgment and order dated 21.2.1997 and were awarded
sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in
default thereof, to serve further sentence of one year.
E. Being aggrieved, all the
three accused/convicts preferred two appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos. 518
& 890 of 1997 before the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur, which were
decided by judgment and order dated 10.2.2005 in absence of their counsel.
F. Being aggrieved, the present
two appellants preferred criminal appeals before this Court i.e. Criminal
Appeal Nos. 1463-64 of 2005 which were allowed vide judgment and order dated
20.7.2006 and this Court after setting aside the judgment and order dated
10.2.2005 of the 3High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur, remanded the appeals to
be heard by the High Court afresh.
G. In pursuance of the
said judgment and order of this Court dated 20.7.2006, the appeals have been heard
afresh and dismissed vide judgment and order dated 15.12.2006 by the High
Court. Hence, this appeal.
proceeding with the case on merit, it may be pertinent to mention here that so far
as the case of the appellant Rakesh is concerned, he had already served the
sentence of more than 14 years and has been granted premature release by the
State. Appellant Rajesh has served about 7 -1/2 years and is still in jail. The
third person Dinesh did not prefer any appeal so we are not concerned with him
so far as this appeal is concerned.
Siddharth Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted
that the Trial Court had placed very heavy reliance upon the alleged
eye-witnesses Khemchand (PW.10) and Anil (PW.11) who, in fact, could not be the
eye-witnesses at all. The deposition of other witnesses examined by the
prosecution, falsify the prosecution's case in entirety. There have been
material inconsistencies in the depositions of Khemchand (PW.10) and Anil
(PW.11), and their entire evidence has to be discredited. The High Court after
considering the circumstances, did not find the evidence of Khemchand (PW.10) trustworthy,
however, failed to appreciate that the evidence of Anil (PW.11) was also liable
to be treated similarly.
The ocular evidence
is contradictory to the medical evidence as the incident had occurred at 11.30 a.m.,
FIR had been lodged at 12.30 p.m. The post-mortem examination was conducted at
1.00 p.m. on the same day i.e. 5.3.1996. The Doctor opined that Kailash @ Killu
had died within 3 to 6 hours before the post-mortem examination. Anil (PW.11)
relied upon by the High Court, is closely related to the deceased Kailash @ Killu
and none of the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution supported its
case to the extent that Anil (PW.11) could be present on the place of
occurrence at the relevant time. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
contra, Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, learned counsel appearing for the State, has
vehemently opposed the appeal contending that there is no rule of law prohibiting
reliance upon the evidence of the close relatives of the victims, however, such
evidence has to be carefully scrutinised. The medical evidence may not be
conclusive regarding the 5time of death as the physical condition of a body
after death depends upon various factors i.e. age, geographical and climatic conditions
of the place of occurrence etc. The facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant
interference with the concurrent findings of the facts recorded by the courts
below. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
to the prosecution case, Rakesh hit on the right side of the neck with knife,
Rajesh on the right portion of the chest by gupti and Dinesh hit by `Katarna' (Axe
having long wooden handle of 42 inches) on the right portion of the stomach of Kailash
@ Killu, deceased. This evidence stands duly supported by the medical evidence
as Dr. R.K. Singhvi (PW.8), on conducting the post-mortem examination found the
following injuries on his person:
wound on the right portion of right clerical bone of 1.5x2x5 cms with regular
edges. Faciea muscle, blood vessel lungs was torn, blood was deposited in the
wound on the right chest on third inter-coster space of 5 cm x 1.5 cm x 5 cm. Faciea
muscle and blood vessels had been cut.
wound in the right chest on ninth intercoster space of 4 cms x 2 cm x 4 cms. In
the opinion of Doctor Singhvi, all the injuries appeared to have been caused
within 3 to 6 hours by sharp edged weapons prior to the post-mortem
the weapons used in the crime had been recovered in the disclosure statements
made by the appellants and other accused. In the opinion of Dr. R.K. Singhvi
(PW.8), injuries nos.1, 2 and 3 could be caused by the weapons used in the
offence. The question does arise as to whether there is inconsistency/contradiction
in the medical and ocular evidence. The evidence on record clearly reveal that injuries
had been caused to Kailash @ Killu, deceased, on his neck, chest and right
portion of the stomach.
is a settled legal proposition that the ocular evidence would have primacy unless
it is established that oral evidence is totally irreconcilable with the medical
evidence. More so, the ocular testimony of a witness has a greater evidentiary value
vis-a`-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable,
that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence.
However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out
all possibility of the ocular evidence if proved, the ocular evidence may be
disbelieved. (Vide: State of U.P. v. Hari Chand, (2009) 13 SCC 542; Abdul Sayeed
v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259; and Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan
Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 421).
far as the opinion of the doctor that death had occurred within 3 to 6 hours
prior to post-mortem examination, does not mean that Dr. R.K. Singhvi (PW.8)
was able to fix any exact time of death. The issue raised by the learned
counsel for the appellants is no more res integra. In Mangu Khan & Ors. v.
State of Rajasthan, AIR 2005 SC 1912, this Court examined a similar issue
wherein the post-mortem report mentioned that the death had occurred within 24
hours prior to post-mortem examination. In that case, such an opinion did not
match with the prosecution case. This Court examined the issue elaborately and
held that physical condition of the body after death would depend on a large number
of circumstances/factors and nothing can be said with certainty.
In determining the issue,
various factors such as age 8and health condition of the deceased, climatic and
atmospheric conditions of the place of occurrence and the conditions under
which the body is preserved, are required to be considered. There has been no cross-examination
of the doctor on the issue as to elicit any of the material fact on which a possible
argument could be based in this regard. The acceptable ocular evidence cannot
be dislodged on such hypothetical basis for which no proper grounds were made.
Baso Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 2007 SC 1019, while considering a
similar issue, this Court held that exact time of death cannot be established
scientifically and precisely. Halle (DW.1), examined by the appellants in their
defence, deposed that incident occurred at 11.00 a.m. which is consistent with the
prosecution case. Thus, in view of the above, the submission so advanced by the
learned counsel for the appellants, is not tenable and thus, does not tilt the balance
in favour of the appellants. The argument does not require any further
Court in Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar,(1996) 1 SCC 614, defined `interested
witness' as: "A close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded
as an interested witness. The term `interested' postulates that the witness must
have some direct interest in having the accused somehow or the other convicted
for some animus or for some other reason."
of related witness can be relied upon provided it is trustworthy. Mere relationship
does not disqualify a witness. Witnesses who are related to the victim are as
competent to depose the facts as any other witness. Such evidence is required to
be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before reaching to a conclusion on the
conviction of the accused in a given case. (See: Himanshu @ Chintu v. State (NCT
of Delhi), (2011) 2 SCC 36; and Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh & Ors.
(PW.11), undoubtedly, has been closely related to the victim being his nephew. His
evidence requires a very careful and close scrutiny in the light of the
aforesaid settled legal propositions.
main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants has been that
the statements of Khemchand (PW.10) and Anil (PW.11) have been mutually
destructive, thus both are liable to be discarded altogether.
The High Court has disbelieved
Khemchand (PW.10) to the extent that he was present at the time of incident and
thus, could not be an eye-witness. Deposition of Anil (PW.11) clearly reveals that
incident occurred at 10.30 a.m. in front of the house of Rama Tailor and the appellants
alongwith Dinesh caused injuries to Kailash (deceased) with weapons such as
knife, gupti and `katarna' on the neck, chest and stomach. At the time of
incident, Anil (PW.11) had been at a short distance from the victim. Ishwar Nayak
(PW.6), Dharmendra (PW.12) and other persons had also gathered there. He also deposed
about the motive that Rakesh, accused, wanted utensils from Kailash (deceased),
who refused to oblige the accused. Rakesh, accused had threatened Kailash to face
dire consequences. In cross-examination, he has admitted that at the time of
the incident, Ishwar Nayak (PW.6), Dharmendra (PW.12) and Pradeep Pathak
(PW.15) etc., were with him.
He denied that he
reached the place of occurrence on being informed by Halle (DW.1) and further
denied the suggestion that he had not seen the quarrel between the accused persons
and the deceased. He gave a full account of the overt acts of the accused while
causing injuries to Kailash. His evidence has to be examined taking into consideration
that the site plan prepared by the Patwari make it clear that the incident
occurred on a main road and the victim as well as Anil (PW.11) were on the same
road. There was no obstruction in 1 between, thus Anil (PW.11) could clearly
view the incident.
Though, there has been
some dispute regarding the distance between the two, but taking into consideration
the fact that the accused had been very well known to the witness being resident
of the same village, the distance becomes immaterial for the reason that the witness
could recognize him even from that distance. The other eye-witnesses, particularly,
Ishwar Nayak (PW.6), Dharmendra (PW.12) and Pradeep Pathak (PW.15) did not support
the case of the prosecution appropriately. Dharmendra (PW.12) stood declared
hostile. Deposition of Ishwar Nayak (PW.6) has corroborated the case of the
prosecution to the extent that Anil (PW.11) was at the place of occurrence
earlier to him.
he deposed as under: "Half the boys ran towards the spot of incident immediately.
Amongst them was Anil also. I did not go with Anil."
view of the above, it is evident that incident occurred at 11.30 a.m. Kailash,
injured was taken to the hospital where he was examined by the doctor and
declared dead. Anil (PW.11) went from hospital to police station and lodged the
FIR at 12.30 p.m. wherein all the three accused were specifically named. The
distance of the police station from the place of occurrence had been only 1
k.m. The overt acts of the accused had been mentioned.
The motive was also
disclosed. It is improbable that the appellants had been enroped falsely as promptness
in lodging the FIR shows that there was no time for manipulation. Prompt and
early reporting of the occurrence by the informant with all its vivid details
gives an assurance regarding truth of its version. Allegations may not be an
after-thought or having a colourable version of the incidents. (See: Kishan
Singh (dead) thr. Lrs. v. Gurpal Singh & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3624).
It does not appeal to
reasons as to why the witness would falsely enrope the appellants and other accused
in such a heinous crime and spare the real culprits to go scot-free. In the FIR,
Anil (PW.11) has disclosed that his father Khemchand (PW.10), Ishwar Nayak
(PW.6) and Dharmendra (PW.12) reached the place of occurrence at a later stage.
As the parties were known to each other being the residents of the same village,
the identity etc. was not in dispute.
Trial Court had appreciated the evidence on record, and reached the conclusion
to the effect that Anil (PW.11) was a trustworthy witness and had been an eye-witness
of the incident. He had faced grilling cross-examination. However, no
discrepancy or error could be shown in spite of the fact that he was nephew of Kailash
(deceased). On careful scrutiny of his deposition, his statement was found
The court further
held that even if the other witnesses on the spot had not supported the prosecution
case, Anil (PW.11) was a natural witness and had seen the incident. The other circumstances
particularly, the statements of B.M. Dubey, Investigating Officer (PW.21) and Balram
(PW.9), the arrest of accused, recovery of weapons on their disclosure statements
proved the prosecution case. The depositions of B.M. Dubey (PW.21) had been
natural. There was no proof that the I.O. (PW.21) had any animosity or any kind
of interest and closeness to the deceased. Therefore, the question of not believing
the statement of B.M. Dubey, I.O. (PW.21) does not arise. The High Court in spite
of the fact of dis-believing Khemchand (PW.10), found the prosecution case wholly
proved on the sole testimony of Anil (PW.11).
are concurrent findings of fact by the two courts below. Unless the findings so
recorded are found to be perverse, this Court should not generally interfere. This
"Court cannot embark upon fruitless task of determining the issues by re-appreciating
the 1evidence." (See : Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam, (2009) 13 SCC
if there are minor discrepancies between the narrations of witnesses when they
speak on details, unless such contradictions are of material dimensions, the same
should not be used to discard the evidence in its entirety. The trivial
discrepancy ought not to obliterate the otherwise acceptable evidence.
Leela Ram (Dead) thr. Duli Chand v. State of Haryana & Anr., (1999) 9 SCC
525, this Court observed as under: "The Court shall have to bear in mind that
different witnesses react differently under different situations: whereas some become
speechless, some start wailing while some others run away from the scene and
yet there are some who may come forward with courage, conviction and belief
that the wrong should be remedied. As a matter of fact it depends upon individuals
and individuals. There cannot be any set pattern or uniform rule of human
reaction and to discard a piece of evidence on the ground of his reaction not falling
within a set pattern is unproductive and a pedantic exercise."
view of the above, we reach the inescapable conclusion that the courts below reached
the correct conclusion in accepting the prosecution case. Anil (PW.11) is a
natural witness and his testimony inspired confidence and is, thus, worth
acceptance. The facts and circumstances of the instant case do not warrant any
interference by this Court. Appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)