Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a criminal case involving the murder of Jitendra Nath. The appellants, Jagdish Narain and Rameshwar Dayal, along with three others, were tried for rioting and murder of the deceased. The Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, acquitted all accused persons. The State preferred an appeal, during which two accused died and their appeal abated. The High Court affirmed the acquittal of one accused, Avinash, but reversed the acquittal of the two appellants and convicted them under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court under Section 379 CrPC. The prosecution case was that on February 11, 1977, deceased Jitendra Nath was carrying sugarcane in a bullock-cart, accompanied by his son Achal Kumar (PW1) and servant Devi Ram (PW2). At about 2 P.M., near a culvert, five accused persons emerged from behind straw heaps armed with deadly weapons. Appellant No.1 fired at the deceased, felling him down. On exhortation, appellant No.2 also fired. The accused fled with the deceased's gun. PW1 lodged an FIR at Bilsanda Police Station within half an hour. Investigation led to chargesheet and trial. Defence was false implication. The trial court acquitted the accused citing five reasons: contradictions between court testimony and earlier statements under Section 161 CrPC, anomaly about place of attack and body location, failure of investigating officer to mark spot of firing in site plan, failure to ascertain ownership of shoes found near body, and deceased's enmity with other persons. The High Court, on reappreciation, found each reason perverse and accepted the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 as credible, while discarding PW3. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants relied on the trial court's reasoning. The court examined each ground. It held that the contradictions were minor omissions, not real contradictions; the alleged anomaly about the scene was explained by evidence that the deceased moved onto a pagdandi through a field where his body was found; the site plan omission was legally immaterial because any marks based on witness statements would be inadmissible under Section 162 CrPC, as laid down in Tori Singh v. State of U.P.; failure to link the shoes was irrelevant since the case rested on ocular evidence; and enmity with others was a plea available to any accused and the guilt must be decided on evidence. The Supreme Court found PWs 1 and 2 to be most probable and natural witnesses, whose evidence stood corroborated by the FIR and medical evidence. The available text ends before the final operative order, but the court's reasoning strongly supports upholding the High Court's conviction.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Ocular Evidence - Minor Omissions not Contradictions - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 161 - Trial court disbelieved eyewitnesses PWs 1 and 2 based on omissions like PW 2 not stating seating position in statement under Section 161 CrPC; Supreme Court held these omissions were so minor and insignificant that they did not amount to contradictions at all, and the trial court's approach was entirely wrong - Held that evidence of PWs 1 and 2 could not be discarded on such trivial discrepancies (Paras 1-5). B) Criminal Trial - Place of Occurrence - Discrepancy Between Attack Spot and Body Location - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 60 - Trial court found anomaly because deceased was attacked on road but body found in field; evidence showed deceased moved onto pagdandi through Ram Autar's field and body was found near pagdandi, thus no anomaly existed - Held that the trial court's finding on this point was perverse and based on non-consideration of evidence (Paras 1-5). C) Criminal Law - Investigation - Site Plan Admissibility - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 162 - Investigating Officer's site plan can record only his personal observations; marks based on witness statements are hit by Section 162 CrPC and inadmissible, except when plan prepared by draftsman and witness corroborates - Held that trial court's criticism of investigating officer for not marking firing spot was legally unsustainable, following Tori Singh v. State of U.P. (Paras 1-5). D) Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Unexplained Shoes Not Fatal - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Since prosecution case rested on eyewitnesses and not circumstantial evidence, failure to ascertain ownership of shoes found near body was immaterial - Held that such lacuna could not impair eyewitness testimony or prosecution case (Paras 1-5). E) Criminal Trial - Enmity with Others - Not a Valid Defence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 148, 149 - Trial court considered deceased's enmity with other persons as ground to doubt prosecution; Supreme Court held this plea would be available to any accused and question of guilt depends on evidence adduced - Held that High Court was fully justified in rejecting this ground (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's acquittal and convicting the appellants under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC based on reappreciation of ocular evidence; whether the trial court's grounds for disbelieving the eyewitnesses were perverse; whether the failure of the Investigating Officer to mark the spot of firing in the site plan was fatal to the prosecution case
Final Decision
The Supreme Court found all grounds for acquittal by the trial court unsustainable and held the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal; the available text does not include the final operative order.
Law Points
- Minor omissions in previous statements do not amount to contradictions
- site plan prepared by investigating officer is admissible only for personal observations
- statements made to police during investigation cannot corroborate maker due to Section 162 CrPC
- enmity with others is not a valid ground to disbelieve prosecution case
- prosecution relying on ocular evidence need not fill circumstantial gaps
- appeal against acquittal under Section 379 CrPC
