Summary
The appellants were convicted under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149, and Section 148 IPC, for an armed assault that killed a man days before his daughters' weddings. They were sentenced to life imprisonment, and the Allahabad High Court affirmed. The Court found that one brother of the deceased, projected as an eyewitness, arrived only after hearing gunfire, as the trial court itself recognised. The other brother was an injured witness, but his police statement was recorded weeks later. The doctor's shifting evidence on the time of examination conflicted with the brothers' account. His evidence was neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable and needed corroboration. The recoveries lacked independent panch witnesses and disclosure memoranda. As the courts below overlooked these vital discrepancies, the appellants were acquitted on benefit of doubt.
Issues
- Whether convictions for murder and attempt to murder could rest on the testimony of an injured relative witness whose evidence was inconsistent with the medical record, without reliable corroboration.
- Whether the Supreme Court could re-appreciate evidence despite concurrent findings of fact.
Provisions considered
- Sections 148, 302 and 307 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860The convictions were set aside because the only eyewitness evidence was uncorroborated and inconsistent, and the recoveries relied on as corroboration were doubtful. (¶¶ 2, 29, 30)
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The recoveries could not corroborate the ocular evidence, because the seizure memos had no independent panch witnesses and the disclosure memoranda were not placed on record. (¶¶ 23, 24)
Held
- Related witnesses are not to be discarded merely because they are interested, but their evidence needs careful scrutiny. One brother was inside his house during the assault and arrived after hearing the shots, as he and the injured brother admitted and the trial court found. He could not be treated as an eyewitness. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
- An injured witness's presence is established by his injuries, and his evidence is not lightly rejected. Here his police statement was recorded weeks after the incident and showed material improvements. The doctor's shifting evidence on when he was examined could not be reconciled with the brothers' own account. Previous enmity cut both ways, as motive and as a reason for false implication. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)
- Under Vadivelu Thevar, the court weighs quality, not quantity, of evidence. Testimony that is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable needs corroboration in material particulars, and the injured witness's evidence fell in that category. (¶¶ 21, 22)
- The recoveries were doubtful. The first telephonic informant was not examined, the station diary entry was not produced, and independent villagers said to have seen the incident were not called. This left open the possibility that the real genesis of the incident was suppressed. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25)
- Concurrent findings of fact are not ordinarily disturbed, but this Court may re-appreciate evidence where they rest on misreading of evidence, ignore vital evidence or are perverse. As the courts below ignored vital discrepancies, the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 29)
Result
Appeals allowed. The convictions and sentences are set aside and the appellants acquitted; those in custody are to be released if not required in any other case, and the bail bonds of the one on bail cancelled.