Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a triple murder that occurred on 17 September 1975 in village Baddapur, district Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh. Three persons, Ram Sewak, Hari Prasad and Bhola, were killed in a gruesome attack involving hand grenades and assault. Jang Bahadur, the complainant, lodged an FIR at Police Station Loni Katra on the same day at about 8:30 p.m., naming seven accused persons. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court, the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barabanki, acquitted all seven accused on 2 July 1977, principally on the ground that the prosecution had not examined independent witnesses and that all eyewitnesses were close relatives of the deceased and therefore untrustworthy. The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed to the High Court, which by judgment dated 16 May 1988 partly allowed the appeal, reversed the acquittal of Bishambhar Dass, Ram Lakhan, Sri Chand, Jagat Narain and Rameshwar, and confirmed acquittal of the remaining accused. During the pendency of the appeal, Bishambhar Dass and Rameshwar died, and the appeal against them abated. The High Court convicted Ram Lakhan, Sri Chand and Jagat Narain under Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to life imprisonment and one year rigorous imprisonment respectively, with sentences to run concurrently. The three convicted appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's reversal of acquittal. The main legal issues were whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal despite the trial court's view being possible, whether conviction could be based on interested witnesses without independent witnesses, whether absence of motive and alleged inconsistency with medical evidence vitiated the conviction, and whether the evidence of a chance witness and a child witness could be relied upon. The appellants' counsel argued that the trial court had observed the demeanor of witnesses and its reasonable view should not be upset; that all eyewitnesses were close relatives and independent witnesses were not examined; that medical evidence was inconsistent with ocular evidence; that no motive was proved; that Jang Bahadur was a chance witness and smoke from grenades prevented identification; and that Bindeshwari was a child witness with doubtful presence and unnatural conduct. The Supreme Court rejected all these contentions. It held that the High Court had given cogent reasons showing the trial court's order of acquittal was perverse, as evidence of close relatives cannot be excluded solely on ground of interest. It found the testimony of four eyewitnesses credible after careful scrutiny. It held that absence of motive is immaterial when there are eyewitnesses. It found no inconsistency between medical and ocular evidence. It accepted the chance witness Jang Bahadur because he disclosed names in the FIR at the earliest opportunity and denied inability due to smoke. It accepted the child witness Bindeshwari because she withstood cross-examination and her conduct was not unnatural. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and directed the appellants, who were on bail, to surrender to serve out the remainder of their sentences.
Headnote
A) Criminal Appeal - Reversal of Acquittal - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 147, 149, 302 - The trial court acquitted the accused solely because the prosecution did not examine independent witnesses and the eyewitnesses were close relatives; the Supreme Court held this reasoning ex facie unsustainable as evidence of relatives cannot be excluded solely for being interested - The High Court gave cogent and well-founded reasons for reversal, pointing out that the order of acquittal was perverse and unsustainable - Held that the High Court was fully justified in reversing the order of acquittal and accepting the evidence of four eyewitnesses (Para 6). B) Criminal Evidence - Interested Witnesses - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 147, 149, 302 - The trial court rejected all eyewitnesses because they were close relatives of the deceased; the Supreme Court reiterated that evidence of close relatives cannot be excluded solely on the ground that they are interested witnesses - The duty of the court is to scrutinise such evidence very carefully and if there is any doubt as regards trustworthiness, the court may discard it - Held that the High Court was justified in accepting the testimony of the four eyewitnesses after careful scrutiny (Para 6). C) Criminal Evidence - Motive - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 147, 149, 302 - The defence contended that the prosecution led no evidence to prove motive behind the murders; the Supreme Court held this contention totally untenable especially in view of the fact that there were as many as four eyewitnesses who actually saw the assault on the three victims - Held that absence of proved motive does not make the prosecution case doubtful when there are eyewitnesses (Para 8). D) Criminal Evidence - Ocular and Medical Evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 147, 149, 302 - The defence argued that medical evidence was wholly inconsistent with ocular evidence of the eyewitnesses; the Supreme Court found that the learned counsel was unable to point out any inconsistency and that the medical evidence was consistent with the ocular evidence - Held that ocular evidence cannot be rejected on alleged inconsistency when none exists (Paras 7, 11). E) Criminal Evidence - Chance Witness - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 147, 149, 302 - Eyewitness Jang Bahadur was challenged as a chance witness and it was argued that smoke from grenade explosions prevented identification; the witness emphatically denied inability to see due to smoke and disclosed the names of the accused in the FIR on the same day - Held that his evidence was trustworthy and could safely be accepted (Para 9). F) Criminal Evidence - Child Witness - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 147, 149, 302 - Bindeshwari, aged about 14 years, was challenged as a child witness whose presence at the place of incident was doubtful and conduct unnatural; the Supreme Court found that she firmly withstood cross-examination and her conduct in going to the field for cutting grass was not unnatural - Held that her evidence was totally free from any doubt and could be relied upon (Para 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's order of acquittal and convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code based on the testimony of interested witnesses, a chance witness and a child witness, in the absence of independent witnesses and proved motive, and whether the medical evidence was inconsistent with the ocular evidence.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code were upheld. The appellants, who were on bail, were directed to surrender to their bail bonds to serve out the remainder of their sentences.
Law Points
- Evidence of close relatives cannot be excluded solely on ground of interest
- court must scrutinise carefully
- absence of motive does not vitiate conviction if eyewitnesses present
- appellate court can reverse acquittal if trial court view perverse
- medical evidence must be consistent with ocular evidence
- chance witness evidence can be accepted if names disclosed in FIR
- child witness evidence can be relied upon if it withstands cross-examination
