18. Let us now consider the law on evidentiary value of
a related witness. Commenting on the aspect, Justice
Vivian Bose in Dalip Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab
AIR 1953 SC 364 rightly opined that;
“25. We are unable to agree with the
learned Judges of the High Court that
the testimony of the two eye-witnesses
requires corroboration. If the
foundation for such an observation is
based on the fact that the witnesses
are women and that the fate of seven
men hangs on their testimony, we know
of no such rule. If it is grounded on
the reason that they are closely
related to the deceased we are unable
to concur. This is a fallacy common
to many criminal cases and one which
another Bench of this Court
endeavoured to dispel in Rameshwar vs.
The State of Rajasthan. We find,
however, that it unfortunately still
persists, if not in the judgments of
the Courts, at any rate in the
arguments of counsel.”
26. A witness is normally to be
considered independent unless he or she
springs from sources which are likely
to be tainted and that usually means
unless the witness has cause such as
enmity against the accused, to wish to
implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a
close relative would be the last to
screen the real culprit and falsely
implicate an innocent person…….”
19. It may further be noted that Babu Lal(PW11)is an
unrelated witness. His testimony substantially supports
the evidence of PW3 and PW12 in all material
particulars. In any case, being related to the deceased
does not necessarily mean that they will falsely
implicate innocent persons. In this context, it was
appropriately observed by Justice H.R. Khanna in State
of Uttar Pradesh vs. Samman Dass (1972) 3 SCC 201
“23………………….It is well known that the close
relatives of a murdered person are most
reluctant to spare the real assailant and
falsely involve another person in place of
the assailant……………….”
20. Again in a later decision of this Court in
Khurshid Ahmed vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir
(2018) 7 SCC 429 one of us, Justice N.V. Ramana
on the issue of evidence of a
related witness was justified in declaring that:
“31. There is no proposition in law that
relatives are to be treated as untruthful
witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to
be shown when a plea of partiality is
raised to show that the witnesses had
reason to shield actual culprit and falsely
implicate the accused (See Harbans Kaur Vs.
State of Haryana)”
The above precedents make it amply clear that the
testimony of the related witness, if found to be
truthful, can be the basis of conviction and we have
every reason to believe that PW3 and PW12 were
immediately present at the spot and identified the
accused with various deadly weapons in their hands.
21. The learned counsel for the appellant next refers
to the defence version of the injuries being caused
through a fall on the Nullah and the old enmity being
the cause for implicating the accused. On this issue,
we may benefit by adverting to the observation of
Justice Faizan Uddin in Sushil & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
(1995) Supp 1 SCC 363 where the learned Judge so
correctly observed:
“8…………….It goes without saying that enmity
is a double-edged weapon which cuts both
ways. It may constitute a motive for the
commission of the crime and at the same time
it may also provide a motive for false
implication. In the present case there is
evidence to establish motive and when the
prosecution adduced positive evidence showing
the direct involvement of the accused in the
crime, motive assumes importance. The
evidence of interested witnesses and those
who are related to the deceased cannot be
thrown out simply for that reason. But if
after applying the rule of caution their
evidence is found to be reliable and
corroborated by independent evidence there is
no reason to discard their evidence but it
has to be accepted as reliable………….”
22. If the witnesses are otherwise trustworthy, past
enmity by itself will not discredit any testimony. In
fact the history of bad blood gives a clear motive for
the crime. Therefore this aspect does not in our
assessment, aid the defence in the present matter.
[REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 2011
Karulal Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
Dated: OCTOBER 09, 2020
1. This Appeal has been preferred by 5 accused,
namely, Karulal(A-5), Amra(A-6), Kachru(A-7),
Suratram(A-8) and Bhagirath(A-9). They challenge the
judgment and order dated 23.6.2009 in Criminal Appeal
No.1637 of 1999 whereby, the Madhya Pradesh High
Court, Indore Bench approved the conviction of the
appellants under Section 148, 302 read with Section 149
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”)
and the resultant sentence for such conviction ordered
by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur
(hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Trial
Court”).
2. The prosecution case is that at about 8-8.30AM
Madhavji the deceased, was present in his fields on
18.8.1993 and his son Bhawarlal (PW3) was grazing
cattle nearby. Bhawarlal suddenly heard his father cry
out and saw that Amra, Kachru, Karu, Surtaram, Lalu
(who is now dead) and Bhagirath were attacking his
father with axe, sword, farsa, lathi, etc. On hearing
commotion, Shyambai (PW 13), daughter of the deceased,
and Bhawarlal (PW9) son of Kaniram and Babulal (PW12),
also reached the spot. On seeing them, the accused ran
away. Bhawarlal then arranged a bullock cart and took
his injured father towards Narayangarh. When they
were crossing the houses of the accused, Badambai,
Munnabai, Ramibai, Sitabai and Veniram s/o Kachru,
blocked the cart and tried to prevent PW3 from lodging
the report and they also threatened to kill. But as
other persons gathered around, the cart could proceed
towards Narayangarh. On the way Madhavji died.
Bhawarlal and Babulal reached Narayangarh Police
Station with the dead body and lodged report at about
11.55 AM, within four hours of the incident. The
distance between the police station and the spot is
about 8 Kilometres.
3. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet
was filed against six accused under Sections 148, 302
read with Section 149 of the IPC. Four others namely,
Badambai, Munnabai, Ramibai and Sitabai were charged
under Section 506 IPC as they allegedly obstructed and
threatened the Informant, when they were proceeding
with the injured in the bullock cart.
4. On evaluating the evidence against the 4 ladies
charged under Section 506 IPC, the Trial judge held
that this charge of obstruction and threat to kill the
Informant, has not been proved and accordingly ordered
for their acquittal.
5. Then the evidence against the accused who were
charged under Section 148, 302 read with Section 149
IPC was considered. To prove its case, the prosecution
examined 15 witnesses of whom, PW 1 witnessed the
arrest of the accused. Four others, i.e.
Kishanlal(PW6), Prabhulal (PW7), Bhawarlal(PW9) s/o
Kaniram and Nanuram(PW13) had turned hostile and did
not support the case of the prosecution. Dr. P.N.
Shrivastav (PW2) had performed the autopsy on the body
of the deceased and noted the following nine injuries
on his person:
(1) Incise wound 4” x 2” x 1/2" on left side of
head with some pointed object.
(2) Compound fracture on right tumor and swelling
around it which was hard and appeared to have been
afflicted by some blunt object.
(3) Compound fracture of right Radioulna bone
caused by some blunt object.
(4) Compound fracture of left Tumor wound caused by
a hard blunt object.
(5) Cut wound on upper left arm 2” x 1” x 1/2" left
Brachial bone with cut with dried blood inflicted
with some sharp object.
(6) Compound fracture of left “Alna” with dried
blood caused with some hard blunt object.
(7) Cut wound measuring 2x2x1” on right ankle with
dried blood with some hard and blunt object
resulting in cut veins.
(8) Compound fracture or right Tibia and Fabula
with some hard and blunt object.
(9) Cut wound 2 x 2-1/2” on left thigh with cut
veins and cut Femoral Artery with dried blood
caused with some hard and cutting object.
6. According to the Doctor, the death was result of
the bleeding following the injuries inflicted by hard,
blunt and sharp-edged weapons and shock. He further
opined during cross examination as under:
“Death of Madhav was caused as a cumulative
effect of various injuries caused to his body.
Injuries to the Tibia, Fabula, Radius and Alna
and Humor bone shall not be fatal unless those
are various serious. No fracture was found in
the injury listed at no.1. If any person falls
in the Nullah and suffers injuries from the
rocks lying underneath and if his hands and
feet come in contact with those rocks, fracture
to Fabula, Tibia, Radius and Alna are possible
as a result thereof.”
7. Bhawarlal (PW3), Babulal (PW11) and Shyamkalabai
(PW12) were the eyewitnesses of the incident. In his
testimony, Bhanwar Lal, son of the deceased, stated
that on 18.8.1993 morning he was grazing his oxen in
the nearby field when he heard the anguished cry of
Madhavji and while running towards his father, the PW3
saw Lala, Karu, Amra, Kachru, Surat Ram and Bhagirath
attacking his father. His sister Shyam Kala (PW12)
also reached the field. According to the (PW3), Lala
and Amra were armed with lathis, Surat Ram was holding
knife, Kachru had a sword, Karuji was holding an axe
having edges like Farsa, Bhagirath too was holding an
axe. The son rushed home and arranged a bullock cart
where the injured Madhavji was placed and then they
proceeded to the Narayangarh police station where he
lodged the FIR. The PW3 also mentioned that injured
Madhavji had told him in the field itself, before he
went to fetch the bullock cart that Lala, Amru, Kachru,
Surat Ram and Bhagirath had assaulted him.
8. Shyam Kala Bai (PW12) is the daughter of the
deceased. While heading towards field, she heard
shrieks for help from her father who was shouting that
Lalaji’s sons were attacking him. She rushed to the
place of occurrence and saw her brother Bhanwar Lal
(PW3) and Babu Lal(PW11) also reaching the spot. She
saw her father in an injured condition and the accused
running away with various weapons in their hand. She
accompanied her injured father in the bullock cart with
her brother and stated that Madhavji expired on the way
to Narayangarh.
9. On the day of the incident, Babu Lal (PW11) was
walking towards his village after spending the night in
the residence of the deceased. In the morning he had
tea with Madhavji who then went ahead to his field.
While proceeding a little later, the witness heard
Madhavji shouting that he was being killed. When the
PW11 rushed to the field, he noticed the accused
attacking Madhavji with lethal arms. Madhavji had
suffered a head injury from an axe blow, apart from
other injuries to his hands and feet. The witness
placed the injured on the bullock cart driven by the
son (PW3). The witness was following the bullock cart
on his foot. Madhavji had expired while proceeding
towards Narayangarh.
10. On evaluating the evidence, the learned Trial Court
found that the six accused (including Lala who died),
being armed with lethal weapons, illegally assembled in
order to attack the deceased Madhavji. While adverting
to the eyewitness, PW3 and PW12 (children of the
deceased), the Court highlighted the third eyewitness
(PW11), who was not related. The trial Court also
discussed the slight inconsistency in the evidence of
PW3 and noted that his examination in chief and cross
examination was conducted after long gap of one and a
half years. His testimony as an eyewitness was however
found to be consistent with the other two eyewitnesses.
11. Similarly, the evidence of Shyam Kala Bai (PW12)
was also found to be reliable by the learned trial
Court as her presence at the spot of attack was
confirmed by PW3 and PW11 (eyewitnesses) and they
corroborated each other, on all material particulars.
12. On the defence version of Ram Singh (DW1) and
Mangi Lal (DW2), who projected that Madhavji suffered
the injury on account of an accidental fall into the
Nullah, the learned Trial Court noted that the DW2, who
was the Chowkidar of the village, never visited the
place of occurrence nor he reported about the alleged
accident of Madhavji to the police which, he ought to
have done in normal course of his duty as the village
Chowkidar. Likewise the evidence of DW1 was found to
be untrustworthy as he claimed to have accompanied
Bhanwar Lal to the police station but in the related
Exhibit there was no mention of DW1 accompanying the
complainant Bhanwar Lal.
13. On the possibility of the injuries being caused
through a fall, the evidence of Dr. P.N.Shrivastav
(PW2) was discussed vis-à-vis the testimony of the two
DWs. The learned trial Judge noted that Dr. Shrivastav
has merely accepted that injuries could be sustained
through a fall from some height. But it was then
specifically recorded by the learned judge that the
Doctor never stated that the injuries were the result
of accidental fall. In fact the defence never suggested
that the injuries were not the result of the violent
attack by the accused on the person of Madhavji.
Accordingly, it was concluded that the injuries on the
vital parts were inflicted by the accused in
furtherance of their common objective.
14. As the accused pleaded false implication due to old
enmity with the deceased’s family, this aspect was
considered in detail. On evaluation of the evidence of
the eyewitnesses and the post mortem report, the
defence plea of false implication was found to be
untrue. It was then held that the accused persons had
intentionally caused the fatal injuries on the deceased
Madhavji and accordingly they were convicted under
Section 302 read with 149 IPC and were sentenced to
life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in
default to undergo six months further rigorous
imprisonment. For the conviction under Section 148
IPC, the accused were sentenced to 3 years rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/- each. It may
again be noted that amongst the six charged accused,
Lala died during the trial.
15. The High Court in the appeal, rejected the plea of
the appellants attempt to discredit the three
eyewitnesses by observing that while it may be possible
that the eyewitnesses may not have witnessed the actual
assault but as they immediately reached the field on
hearing the shrieks of Madhavji, their testimony on the
accused being armed with lethal weapons and fleeing the
spot soon after the assault, cannot be discarded. The
High Court found consistency in the testimony of the
eyewitnesses and noted that the injuries attributed by
the eyewitnesses to the accused, is corroborated by the
medical evidence. It was then concluded that there is
no infirmity in the judgment of conviction rendered by
the learned Trial Court and the appeal against
conviction was accordingly dismissed.
16. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant-
Mr. T. Mahipal submits that the evidence of PW3 and
PW12 should be discarded as they are the children of
the deceased. He then submits that because of past
enmity, the appellants were falsely implicated. The
counsel also refers to few of the witnesses not
supporting the prosecution version.
17. On the other hand, Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, the
learned Dy. AG for the State of Madhya Pradesh argues
that the evidence of the 3 eyewitnesses conclusively
support the prosecution case. She then submits that
medical evidence and injuries corroborate the oral
testimonies. According to the learned counsel, bitter
relationship of the two groups provide a clear motive
for the accused to attack the victim.
18. Let us now consider the law on evidentiary value of
a related witness. Commenting on the aspect, Justice
Vivian Bose in Dalip Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab
AIR 1953 SC 364 rightly opined that;
“25. We are unable to agree with the
learned Judges of the High Court that
the testimony of the two eye-witnesses
requires corroboration. If the
foundation for such an observation is
based on the fact that the witnesses
are women and that the fate of seven
men hangs on their testimony, we know
of no such rule. If it is grounded on
the reason that they are closely
related to the deceased we are unable
to concur. This is a fallacy common
to many criminal cases and one which
another Bench of this Court
endeavoured to dispel in Rameshwar vs.
The State of Rajasthan. We find,
however, that it unfortunately still
persists, if not in the judgments of
the Courts, at any rate in the
arguments of counsel.”
26. A witness is normally to be
considered independent unless he or she
springs from sources which are likely
to be tainted and that usually means
unless the witness has cause such as
enmity against the accused, to wish to
implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a
close relative would be the last to
screen the real culprit and falsely
implicate an innocent person…….”
19. It may further be noted that Babu Lal(PW11)is an
unrelated witness. His testimony substantially supports
the evidence of PW3 and PW12 in all material
particulars. In any case, being related to the deceased
does not necessarily mean that they will falsely
implicate innocent persons. In this context, it was
appropriately observed by Justice H.R. Khanna in State
of Uttar Pradesh vs. Samman Dass (1972) 3 SCC 201
“23………………….It is well known that the close
relatives of a murdered person are most
reluctant to spare the real assailant and
falsely involve another person in place of
the assailant……………….”
20. Again in a later decision of this Court in
Khurshid Ahmed vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir
(2018) 7 SCC 429 one of us, Justice N.V. Ramana
on the issue of evidence of a
related witness was justified in declaring that:
“31. There is no proposition in law that
relatives are to be treated as untruthful
witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to
be shown when a plea of partiality is
raised to show that the witnesses had
reason to shield actual culprit and falsely
implicate the accused (See Harbans Kaur Vs.
State of Haryana)”
The above precedents make it amply clear that the
testimony of the related witness, if found to be
truthful, can be the basis of conviction and we have
every reason to believe that PW3 and PW12 were
immediately present at the spot and identified the
accused with various deadly weapons in their hands.
21. The learned counsel for the appellant next refers
to the defence version of the injuries being caused
through a fall on the Nullah and the old enmity being
the cause for implicating the accused. On this issue,
we may benefit by adverting to the observation of
Justice Faizan Uddin in Sushil & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
(1995) Supp 1 SCC 363
where the learned Judge so correctly observed:
“8…………….It goes without saying that enmity
is a double-edged weapon which cuts both
ways. It may constitute a motive for the
commission of the crime and at the same time
it may also provide a motive for false
implication. In the present case there is
evidence to establish motive and when the
prosecution adduced positive evidence showing
the direct involvement of the accused in the
crime, motive assumes importance. The
evidence of interested witnesses and those
who are related to the deceased cannot be
thrown out simply for that reason. But if
after applying the rule of caution their
evidence is found to be reliable and
corroborated by independent evidence there is
no reason to discard their evidence but it
has to be accepted as reliable………….”
22. If the witnesses are otherwise trustworthy, past
enmity by itself will not discredit any testimony. In
fact the history of bad blood gives a clear motive for
the crime. Therefore this aspect does not in our
assessment, aid the defence in the present matter.
23. The appellant’s counsel also submitted that few of
the witnesses had not supported the prosecution case
and were declared to be hostile. But there are enough
material evidence and trustworthy testimonies which
clearly support the case against the accused and the
prosecution need not fail on this count alone. Some
witness may not support the prosecution story for their
own reasons and in such situation, it is necessary for
the Court to determine whether the other available
evidence comprehensively proves the charge. In this
case, it is seen that the prosecution version is cogent
and supported by three eyewitnesses who have given a
consistent account of the incident. Their testimonies
are corroborated by the medical evidence. The learned
Trial Judge had elaborately discussed the evidence of
both sides and came to a logical conclusion which
inspires confidence. We are therefore of the view that
the hostile witnesses will not affect the conviction of
the appellants.
24. Proceeding on the above basis and on careful
examination of the manner in which the learned Trial
Judge analysed the evidence and rendered his verdict,
the conviction of the appellants according to our
assessment, was rightly ordered and correctly upheld by
the High Court. It is declared accordingly.
25. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.
……………………………………………J.
[N.V. RAMANA]
……
………………………………………J.
[SURYA KANT]
……………………………………………J.
[HRISHIKESH ROY]
NEW DELHI
OCTOBER 09, 2020
No comments:
Post a Comment