Summary
The appellant's conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, affirmed by the High Court, was challenged on the grounds that the High Court uploaded its reasoned judgment about two years and five months after pronouncing the operative order and that the pistol attributed to him was never recovered. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal: the testimony of the two eyewitnesses, one of them injured, inspired confidence; non-recovery of the weapon does not render direct evidence doubtful; motive pales into insignificance where the case rests on direct evidence; and delay in uploading reasons, though a matter of grave concern, does not by itself warrant setting aside the judgment. The Court reiterated the Anil Rai guidelines on timely pronouncement of judgments and directed the judgment be circulated to all High Courts.
Issues
- Whether a delay of about two years and five months by the High Court in uploading its reasoned judgment after pronouncing the operative part is by itself a ground to set aside the judgment and remand the criminal appeal for fresh hearing.
- Whether the appellant's participation in the shooting could be held proved on the ocular evidence of two eyewitnesses when the firearm allegedly used by him was never recovered or discovered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
- Whether the absence of proof of motive affects a prosecution case founded on direct evidence.
- What principles govern the appreciation of ocular evidence, including that of an injured eyewitness.
Provisions considered
- Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The appellant and a co-accused were convicted of murder with common intention on the direct evidence of two eyewitnesses who named the appellant as having fired a pistol shot at the deceased before the co-accused fired the fatal shots. The Court found no reason to disturb the concurrent findings. (¶¶ 4, 13, 21, 30, 31, 42)
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Section 27 permits proof of so much of information from an accused as leads to the discovery of a fact. The Court held that the failure to recover or discover the appellant's firearm under Section 27 during investigation does not render the ocular version of the eyewitnesses doubtful; a discovery or recovery, if any, is only an aid to the other evidence led at trial. (¶¶ 25, 26, 35, 36, 37, 38)
Held
- The appreciation of ocular evidence admits of no fixed formula. The evidence of a witness read as a whole must be tested for a ring of truth, after which deficiencies and infirmities are weighed against its general tenor; an appellate court must give due weight to the trial court's appreciation and should not reject evidence for minor variations or trivial discrepancies, hyper-technical reading of sentences out of context, or technical errors of the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter. Witnesses cannot be expected to have photographic memory, to recall exact words, precise times or the sequence of rapid events, and may be overawed in court; a former statement seemingly inconsistent with the evidence is not necessarily a contradiction unless it has the potency to discredit the later statement. (¶ 32)
- The presence of an injured eyewitness at the time and place of occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition; it must be presumed, unless otherwise established, that an injured witness would not let the real culprits escape and falsely implicate the accused. Such evidence carries greater evidentiary value and is not to be discarded lightly or doubted for embellishments or minor contradictions; any exaggeration is to be discarded, not the whole evidence, and the broad substratum of the prosecution version is to be considered. (¶ 33)
- In assessing eyewitness evidence the two principal considerations are whether it is possible to believe the witnesses' presence at the scene in circumstances enabling them to see what they depose to, and whether anything in their evidence is inherently improbable or unreliable. Where the accused raises a definite plea or positive case inconsistent with the prosecution, its probabilities are also to be weighed. (¶ 34)
- Non-recovery of the firearm allegedly used by the accused, or absence of a discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, does not render the ocular version of eyewitnesses doubtful; recovery of the weapon, if any, merely aids the other evidence led at trial. Mere non-recovery of a pistol or cartridge does not detract from the prosecution case where clinching and direct evidence is acceptable, and recovery of no incriminating material from the accused cannot alone exonerate him when his participation is unfolded in an unimpeachable ocular account. (¶¶ 35, 36, 37, 38)
- Once the prosecution case is based on direct evidence, motive pales into insignificance. (¶¶ 39, 40)
- The practice of some High Courts of pronouncing the operative part of an order and uploading the reasoned judgment only after a substantial time has been repeatedly deprecated; it deprives the aggrieved party of the opportunity to seek further judicial redress, particularly in criminal appeals affirming a conviction. The High Court's delay of about two years and five months in uploading its judgment is a matter of grave concern of which serious cognizance was taken, and it is because of that delay that the Court examined the oral evidence threadbare despite the dismissal of the co-convict's special leave petition. (¶¶ 41, 43, 46, 47, 48)
- Delay in uploading a reasoned judgment is not by itself sufficient to set aside the impugned judgment; it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Here, despite the delay, the testimony of the two eyewitnesses inspired confidence and nothing intrinsic on record rendered it doubtful, so the conviction was not disturbed. The guidelines in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar on pronouncement of reserved judgments, and the directions in Ravindra Pratap Shahi requiring the Registrar General of each High Court to list to the Chief Justice judgments reserved but not pronounced within the month and, after three months, to place them before the Chief Justice for assignment to another Bench if not pronounced within two weeks, were reiterated. (¶¶ 42, 44, 45, 48)
Result
Appeal dismissed; conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment affirmed; pending applications disposed of; Registry directed to forward a copy of the judgment to all High Courts.