Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard a criminal appeal by the complainant against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court acquitting four accused persons of murder. The trial court, Additional Sessions Judge II, Rohtak, had convicted the first accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the remaining three accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment and fines. The prosecution case was that on December 8, 1984, a quarrel took place at the house of Giani in Rohtak between the accused and some persons including the deceased Ishwar over money. Ishwar intervened and pushed the first two accused out of the house. Later that evening, all four accused came to Ishwar's house, some armed with a Ranpi and lathis, forcibly entered, and assaulted Ishwar. The first accused struck Ranpi blows on Ishwar's back and right hand, the second accused gave lathi blows, and Ishwar's mother Dhan Kaur was also injured when she intervened. Ishwar was taken to hospital but succumbed to injuries before treatment. The FIR was recorded on the statement of Prem Singh, an eyewitness, and after investigation a chargesheet was filed under Sections 302, 302/34, and 449 IPC. The trial court convicted the accused relying on the evidence of eye witnesses Prem Singh, Krishan, Dhan Kaur, and Rajinder. The High Court reversed the conviction, holding that the fatal injury could not have been caused by the Ranpi based on its blade dimensions, that the witnesses were close relatives of the deceased and hence interested, and that the mother's injuries did not authenticate her presence. The complainant appealed to the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that the High Court erred in rejecting ocular evidence based on medical opinion, in doubting witnesses solely due to relationship, and in assuming the injury could not be caused by the Ranpi. The respondents supported the acquittal. The Supreme Court found that the High Court dealt with the appeal in a very casual manner and that its reasons for acquittal were contrary to the evidence. The Court held that related witnesses cannot be disbelieved merely because of relationship, and that the medical opinion of Dr. Rohtas Yadav was given casually and could not nullify the credible testimony of three eye witnesses. Visualizing the assault, the Court found no improbability in a forceful Ranpi blow causing a 14 cm deep injury. The Court also held that common intention under Section 34 IPC was established because all accused came together armed, trespassed, held the deceased, and assaulted him. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's acquittal, and restored the trial court's judgment of conviction and sentences.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Appeal Against Acquittal - Power of Appellate Court to Re-Appreciate Evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 34 - The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court's acquittal was based on cogent and satisfactory objective assessment of evidence; the Court found the High Court dealt with the matter in a causal manner and recorded reasons contrary to evidence, hence interfered to restore trial court conviction. Held that where acquittal is perverse and based on erroneous rejection of ocular evidence, appellate court may set aside acquittal (Paras 10-14). B) Criminal Law - Related Witnesses - Interested Witness Testimony - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 34 - Related witnesses cannot be disbelieved solely on ground of relationship; if testimony is credible and unimpeachable, conviction can be based on it. High Court erred in rejecting evidence of eye witnesses solely because they were close relatives of deceased. Held that evidence of related witnesses is not to be discarded merely due to interestedness unless their testimony suffers from material contradictions (Paras 12-14). C) Evidence - Medical Evidence vis-à-vis Ocular Evidence - Conflict Between Medical Opinion and Eye Witness Account - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 34 - Medical opinion as to weapon causing injury is opinion evidence; when medical witness gives evidence in a causal manner and ocular evidence is credible, medical opinion cannot nullify direct testimony. High Court erroneously held Ranpi could not cause fatal injury based on measurement; Supreme Court visualized assault and found no improbability of deep injury from forceful blow. Held that ocular evidence prevails over inconclusive medical opinion (Paras 11, 14). D) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 34 - Common intention can be inferred from the fact that all accused came together armed, trespassed into house, one held the deceased while others assaulted, and then fled. Court upheld conviction under Section 302/34. Held that presence and participation with prior concert established common intention to commit murder (Para 14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused by rejecting the evidence of related eye witnesses on the basis of medical opinion and interestedness; whether common intention under Section 34 IPC was established
Final Decision
Criminal appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment and order dated October 29, 1986 acquitting respondents Nos. 1 to 4 (A-1 to A-4) quashed and set aside; trial court judgment and order of conviction dated October 24/26, 1985 restored, including sentences of life imprisonment and fines.
Law Points
- Related witnesses cannot be disbelieved solely due to relationship
- medical opinion is opinion evidence and cannot nullify credible ocular evidence
- common intention under Section 34 IPC can be inferred from collective conduct
- High Court's acquittal was perverse and based on casual assessment of evidence
