Summary
The appellant's conviction for murder and for offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was set aside and he was acquitted. The sole supporting eyewitness was the deceased's mother, an interested witness. She was contradicted by the hostile witnesses on the occurrence and on the motive. The medical evidence had unexplained inconsistencies, and no independent witness was examined although the incident happened on a busy main road.
Issues
- Whether the occurrence and motive were proved when the mother of the deceased, an interested witness, was contradicted by the other prosecution witnesses.
- What evidentiary value the post-mortem report had when it contained inconsistencies the doctor could not explain.
- Whether the testimony of hostile witnesses can be used to discredit the prosecution case and support an acquittal.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302 and 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860The convictions under these sections, recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court, were set aside because the occurrence itself was not proved. (¶¶ 10, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4)
- Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x), Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989The convictions under these provisions fell with the finding that the prosecution failed to prove the incident. (¶¶ 10.2, 10.3, 10.4)
- Sections 145, 157 and 159, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Relying on Ghulam Hassan Beigh, the Court noted that a post-mortem report is not substantive evidence and can be used only to corroborate, refresh the memory of, or contradict the doctor, whose testimony in court is the substantive evidence. (¶¶ 6, 6.1)
Held
- A post-mortem report is not substantive evidence by itself. Where the report and the inquest report give irreconcilable dates and times, the doctor cannot satisfactorily explain them, and the wound certificate is undated, the medical evidence loses its evidentiary value. (¶¶ 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 6, 6.1, 10.1)
- Evidence of a related or interested witness need not be rejected mechanically, but it calls for extra caution. Where it is full of contradictions and other evidence on record demolishes it, it loses its reliability. (¶¶ 7.4, 7.5, 8, 8.1, 8.2)
- Just as the dependable part of a hostile witness's evidence, if corroborated, can support a conviction, a hostile witness's testimony that is credible when read with the other evidence can equally be used to discredit the prosecution case and support an acquittal. (¶¶ 8.3, 8.4, 8.4.1, 8.4.2, 9)
- The mother's account that the companion of the deceased came to inform her was contradicted by that companion. Her account of a village Panchayat after the elopement, which was the motive, was denied by the witnesses said to have held it. With no witness examined from a busy public road and the scene inspected only the next day, neither the occurrence nor the motive was proved. (¶¶ 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 10, 10.1)
- On such weak and contradictory evidence, the trial court and the High Court committed a concurrent error in convicting the appellant. (¶ 10.2)
Result
Appeal allowed. The judgments of the High Court and the Special Sessions Judge were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith unless required in another case.