Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a murder that took place on March 31, 1967, at about 2.30 p.m. in village Gadarian Purwa, within the jurisdiction of police station Mandiaon, Uttar Pradesh. The deceased, Parmeshwar Din, and one Sita Ram had purchased two plots of land from Paggu and others by sale deed dated December 23, 1966, and had taken possession and sown wheat. Accused Sarju and Putti, brothers, laid claim to those plots and sought the help of the influential accused Ram Prasad, promising him half the land if successful. On the day of the incident, Parmeshwar Din was getting the wheat crop harvested. Accused Udit Narain came and told him that some persons wanted to talk about the plots. Parmeshwar Din accompanied Udit Narain to the house of Jaskaran. Shortly thereafter, prosecution witnesses Umrao and Sita Ram heard cries and saw six accused surrounding Parmeshwar Din, giving banka blows. The accused dragged him inside a tarwaha and continued the assault. Witnesses Chandrika and Mohan also saw the accused giving banka blows. The accused fled after threatening the witnesses. Parmeshwar Din was found dead in a pool of blood. FIR was lodged by Umrao at 5.30 p.m. The investigation was conducted by Station Officer Tiwari, who arrived at the spot at 6.30 p.m., recorded statements, and prepared an inquest report. Post mortem examination by Dr. Jaitle on April 1, 1967, revealed 23 injuries, including 18 incised wounds, sufficient to cause death. The trial court, the Additional Sessions Judge Lucknow, convicted all six accused under Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to 18 months rigorous imprisonment on the first count and life imprisonment on the second. The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, affirmed the conviction. The three appellants, Ram Prasad, Udit Narain, and Sri Pal, appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. Their main contentions were that the prosecution evidence was unreliable and suffered from infirmities; that the four eyewitnesses were interested and partisan; that the statement of Chandrika was recorded 25 days after the occurrence; that the FIR omitted to mention that injuries were caused before dragging; and that the prosecution failed to examine other eyewitnesses named in the FIR, namely Baddal, Shankar, Hubba, and also Sham Lal and another Hubba. The State argued that the evidence of the four eyewitnesses was consistent and trustworthy, the delay in recording Chandrika's statement was adequately explained, the FIR omission was immaterial, and the prosecution was not required to examine every witness. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that non-examination of some eyewitnesses does not introduce any fatal infirmity. It reiterated that while the prosecution must produce witnesses essential to unfolding the narrative, it cannot be laid down as a rule that every person present must be called. The effect of non-examination depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. If enough reliable witnesses have been examined, the prosecution may refrain from examining others. Likewise, if a witness is won over, the prosecution has a valid ground for not examining him. However, the prosecution cannot withhold a witness merely because his evidence would favour the accused. The court also observed that it is the duty of the prosecutor and the court to ensure full and material facts are brought on record to prevent miscarriage of justice. The court found no cogent ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court on the reliability of the eyewitnesses. It held that the delay in recording Chandrika's statement was explained by his absence, and the FIR omission did not exculpate the accused because they acted with common object. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentences were affirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prosecution Witnesses - Duty to Examine Witnesses - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The prosecution is not obligated to examine every eyewitness; it must produce witnesses essential to unfolding the narrative; non-examination of some eyewitnesses does not introduce fatal infirmity if sufficient reliable evidence exists. Held that the effect of non-examination depends on facts, and if witnesses are won over or not essential, prosecution may validly refrain; but prosecution cannot withhold a witness merely because evidence may favour accused, and the court may draw an adverse inference if witnesses are withheld for untenable reasons (Paras 1-6). B) Criminal Law - Witness Testimony - Delay in Recording Statement - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - A delay of 25 days in recording the statement of an eyewitness did not justify rejection of his testimony when his name was mentioned in the FIR lodged within three hours and the delay was explained by his absence due to a family member's illness. Held that the delay was adequately explained, and other eyewitnesses corroborated the prosecution case (Paras 4-5). C) Criminal Law - First Information Report - Omission of Details - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - An omission in the FIR to state that injuries were caused before the deceased was dragged inside the tarwaha did not materially affect the prosecution case. Held that even if injuries were only caused inside, it would not exculpate the accused because they acted in prosecution of the common object to cause death, and individual attribution of injuries was not necessary (Paras 4-5). D) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Interested Witnesses - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The court upheld conviction based on testimony of interested or partisan witnesses because the trial court and High Court had found the witnesses trustworthy and reliable after considering all features of the case. Held that no cogent ground existed to take a different view on concurrent findings of fact (Paras 5-6). E) Criminal Law - Common Object - Section 149 Indian Penal Code - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 148, 149, 302 - The accused were armed with bankas, dragged the deceased inside the tarwaha, and caused injuries in prosecution of their common object to cause death. Held that all accused were liable under Section 149 read with Section 302, and they could not benefit from the inability of witnesses to specify which accused caused which particular injury (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether non-examination of some eyewitnesses mentioned in the FIR introduced fatal infirmity to the prosecution case; whether delay of 25 days in recording the statement of a witness warranted rejection of his testimony; whether omission in the FIR about the exact sequence of injuries created reasonable doubt; whether the evidence of interested witnesses could be relied upon to sustain conviction.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence of the three appellants under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC affirmed.
Law Points
- The prosecution is not bound to examine every eyewitness
- it must produce witnesses essential to unfolding the narrative
- non-examination of some witnesses does not introduce fatal infirmity if sufficient reliable evidence exists
- the effect of non-examination depends on facts and circumstances of each case
- the prosecution may refrain from examining witnesses if enough reliable witnesses have been examined or if a witness has been won over
- the prosecution cannot withhold a witness merely because his evidence would favour the accused
- it is the duty of the prosecutor and the court to ensure full and material facts are brought on record to prevent miscarriage of justice
- if the court finds that the prosecution has not examined witnesses for untenable reasons
- it may draw an adverse inference against the prosecution
- delay in recording a witness's statement may be explained and not fatal if the witness's name appears in the FIR and other evidence corroborates
- omission in the FIR regarding exact sequence of injuries does not exculpate accused when common object is established
- concurrent findings of lower courts on credibility of witnesses are not interfered with absent cogent grounds.
