Holding

In factional violence cases, convictions must be based on reliable, corroborated evidence; where injuries indicate a limited number of assailants, only those positively identified may be convicted.

Summary

The appellants were charged with murder, rioting and unlawful assembly under IPC ss. 147, 149 and 302 for the killing of Hanuwa, a villager, during a group rivalry. The prosecution’s case relied mainly on the testimony of the victim’s mother (PW‑1) and sister (PW‑5), who were close relatives and thus interested witnesses, and on two independent witnesses who identified only four of the accused. Medical evidence showed only seven injuries on the victim, suggesting that no more than seven persons could have delivered blows, contrary to the prosecution’s claim of a large mob. The Supreme Court held that in cases of factional violence the evidence must be scrutinised with utmost care and that convictions cannot rest on uncorroborated, interested testimony. Consequently, the Court upheld the convictions of Baran, Karan, Bhagau and Parsadi, who were positively identified, and set aside the convictions of the remaining appellants, acquitting them on the ground of reasonable doubt.

Issues considered

Whether convictions based primarily on the testimony of interested eye‑witnesses without independent corroboration can be sustained in a case of group rivalry.
Whether the nature and number of injuries sustained by the victim can be used to infer the maximum number of participants in the assault.
Whether the prosecution evidence meets the standard of proof required under IPC ss. 147, 149 and 302.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 149, s. 302

Subjects

group rivalryunlawful assemblymurdereyewitness testimonycorroborationreasonable doubtinjury analysisconvictionacquittalIPC sections 147 149 302

Judgment

BUDHWA ALIAS RAMCHARAN AND ORS.
v.
A
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

OCTOBER 5, 1990

[KULDIP SINGH AND M.FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.] B

Indian Prmal Code, 1860: ss. 147, 149 & 302: Conviction under-
Melee-Particularization of blows given impossible-Nature of injuries
received by victim important-Need for observance of utmost care and
caution in sifting evidence.
• The appellants were convicted for offences nnder Ss. 147, 149 and c
302 IPC for murdering a villager. The prosecution case was that
motivated.by group rivalry the accused persons numbering over fdleen
attacked the deceased with tabbals and lathis while be accompanied by
bis mother, PW 1, and sister, PW 5, was on bis way to a nearby village
to supply milk. As a result of the injuries sustained the deceased died on D
the spot. When PW 1 tried to intervene, she too was assaulted. She
lodged the FIR thereafter the same day against the appellants and
others.

At the trial PW 4 and PW 6 deposed to having seen appellants
Baran, Bhagau, -Karan and Parsadi anned with lathis and tabbals E
_, hurriedly going towards the place of occurrence ahead of the decease..
at a short distance. The medical evidence disclosed that the deceased
had sustained in an seven injuries, two incised wounds on the scalp, two
contusions and three bruises.

The trial court found that the appellants were members of an F

... unlawful assembly and death of the deceased was caused by them in
prosecution of a common object. The High Court on appeal agreed with
the findings of the trial court.

lu the appeal by special leave, it was contended for the appellants
that the courts below had failed to exercise the necessary care and G
caution that was required in scrutinising the evidence of the two eye
witnesses who were close relations of the deceased and deeply interested
in involving the appellants on account of enmity, and that in the absence
of independent corroboration the conviction based on the testimony of
these witnesses was unwarranted.
H
Disposing oftbe appeal, the Court,
IOI
102 SUPREME. COURT REf JRTS [1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A HELD: 1.1 It is ~ID accepted proposition that in the c:.se of group .
rivalries and enmities, there is a general tendency to ihvolve as many
-
,~.

persons of the opposite faction as possible by merely naming them as
having participated in the assault. The court, therefore,. bas in alhucb
cases to sift the evidence with utmost care and caution and convict only
,those persons against whom the prosecution witnesses can be safely
B relied upon without raising any element of doubt. [107C·D]

1
Baldev Singh v. Srate of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 464; Raghubir Singh
v. State of U.P., AIR 1971 SC 2156 and Muthu Naicker v. State of
Tamil Nadu, [1978] 4 SCC 385, referred to.
'
c evidence
1.2 The conviction of the appellants was principally based on the
of PW 1 and PW S, the mother and sister of the deceased.
Though their evidence was not to he discarded as interested, necessary
caution should have been observed in accepting the same in upholding
the conviction of all the appellants. [104H; lOSA] -.
D 2.I In a melee, as in the instant case, where several people are.
giving blows at one and the· same;tiine it will be impossible to parti·
cularize the blows. If any witness attempts to do it, his veracity is
doubtful. But, It is simpler to make an omnibus statement that all the
accused assanlted with their weapons because that obviates close_cr:oSs-
examination. Therefore, the nature of injuries sustained by the victim
E assnmes importance. [lOSH; 106A]

2.2 PWs 1 and S stated that the accused persons surrounded the.
victim and each one of them assaulted him with the weapon they bad ..
PW 1 stated that some of the assailants had given more than one blow,

-
:
They did not state who caused the head injuries. They have not attemp-
F ted to attribute any one of the injuries to any particular assailant. The
evidence was in general tenns'" If a group of more than fifteen persons
had encircled the viCtim and simultaneously attacked him with tabbals
and lathis without any resistance or any intervention, there would have
been certainly corresponding injuries of the concerted attack on the
person of the victim. The medical evi~ence shows that besides the two
Q incised wounds on the scalp which proved fatal the deceased had only
five minor jnjurieson his person. [lOSE-GJ

2.3 When the several blows with lathis and tabbals could prQduce
only seven injuries on the person of.the deceased the necessary inference
would be that not more than seven persons might baye participated in ·
...
fl flelivering the blows. Therefore, the presence of more than seven
BUDHWA v. STATE OF M.P. [FATHIMA BEEVL, !.] 103

persons is doubtful. This aspect of the case has not been given due
A
weight by the High Court while appreciating the evidence. [lOSH; 106A-C]
I .
3.1 The manner in which the incident happened also makes it
clear that the assailants acted in prosecution of the common object to
cause the death of the victim. There is no doubt that more than five
_pers1ms had actually participated in the crime. There is clear evidence B
regarding the identity of only four persons. Appellants Baran, Karan,
Bhagau and Parsadi had been located by PW 4 and PW 6, two indepen-
dent witnesses, in the locality just before the incident. This evidence
r lends assurance to the testimony of PW 1 and PW 5 regarding their
participation in the crime. [107B-C]

3.2 The conviction of these four persons has, therefore, been c
rightly sustained. Regarding the rest of the appellants there is scope of
genuine doubt. Their conviction and sentence are accordingly set a&de. [lOOD]

\ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
' No. 168 of 1979. D

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.9.1978 of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1094 of 1976.

_j U.R. Lalit, S.S. Khanduja, Y.P. Dhingra and B.K. Satija for the
Appellants. E

Uma Nath Singh for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
,
- FATHIMA BEEVI, J. This _appeal by special leave is directed F
against the judgment of the High.Court of Madhya Pradesh confir,ning
the conviction of the appellants for the offences under sections 147 arid
302/149, I.P.C., and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life. The
appellants and four persons acquitted by the trial court were tried for
the murder of one Hanuwa. The prosecution alleged that motivated by
group rivalry the accused persons attacked Hanuwa with tabbals and G
lathis on July 11, 1975 at about 8-.30 A.M. The occurrence happened
on the track across the field leading to village MungeIi. Hanuwa
accompanied by his mother Baiyanbai and sister Birjhbai was on his
' __, way to Mungeli to supply milk. When he reached Ghotora near Nay4-
gaon village, the accused persons advanced towards him and mourile!I
the atiack. As a result of the injuries sustained, Hariuwa died on the ,_H
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1990) Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A spot. When Baiyanbai tried to intervene, she too was assaulted.
Baiyanbai lodged the first information report at 12.00 noon the same
day against these appellants and others who were finally chargesheeted.

Baiyanbai (PW-I) and Birjhbai (PW-5) were the two eye-witnes-
ses who unfolded the prosecution case. Mangal (PW-4) and Dilashbai
B (PW-6) deposed to having seen appellants Baran, Bhagau, Karan and
Parsadi armed with lathis and tabbals hurriedly going towards the place
of occurrence ahead of the deceased at a short distance. The medical
evidence disclosed that Hanuwa sustained in all seven injuries; two
incised wound on the scalp resulting in multiple fracture of the parietal
bone and tear of right lobe of the brain; two contusions and three
bruises on the forearm, right upper arm scapular region and buttock.
C Injuries sustained by PW-1 was incised wound in between right thumb
and index finger which could be caused with any sharp object.. The
plea of the accused was that they were falsely implicated due to
enmity. The learned.Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution evidence
and convicted these appellants finding that they were members of an
D unlawful assembly and death of Hanuwa was caused by the members
in prosecution of the common object of the assembly. Arjun, Bhikam,
Nanku and Parethan were given the benefit of doubt in view of the
discrepancies in mentioning their names and they were acquitted. The
High Court on appeal agreed with the findings of the trial court and
confirmed the conviction and sentence.
E
The conviction of the appellants is assailed before us mainly on
the ground that the two eye-witnesses in the case are close relations of
the deceased deeply interested in involving the appellants on account
of the enmity and their evidence was required to be scrutinised with
great care and caution and the trial court as well as the High Court
F failed to exercise the necessary caution with the result conviction has
been wrongly recorded leading to miscarriage of justice. According,to
the appellants.' learned counsel, the evidence of the eye-witnesses read
along with the medical evidence renders the prosecution case highly
improbable and doubtful about the presence and participation of the
appellants in the assault. It is submitted that the tendency to involve
G innocent persons by merely mentioning their names is discernible and
in the absence of independent corroboration the conviction based on
the testimony of PW-1 and PW-5 is unwarranted.

We have considered these argumertts in the light of the material
evidence analysed and discussedhy the courts below. We find that the
H conviction of the appellants is principally based on th~ evidence of.
BUDHWA v. STATE OF M.P. [FATHIMA BEEVI. J.] !05

PW- I and PW-5, the mother and sister of the deceased. Though their
A
evidence is not to be discarded as interested, the necessary caution has
to be observed in accepting the evidence of these witnesses. It is an
accepted proposition tha: in the case of group rivalries and enmities.
there i.s a general.tendency to rope in as many persons as possible as
havirig participated in the assault. "The courts have, therefore. to be
r very careful and if after a close scrutiny of the evidence, the reasonable B
doubt arises with regard to the participation of any of those who have
been ropec' in, the court would be obliged to give the benefit of doubt
to them", vide Baldev Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 464. This
C our! has in several decisions pointed. out that "where there is enmity
between the two factions then there is a tendency on the part of the
aggrieved victim to give an exaggerated version and to rope in even
innocent members of the opposite faction in a criminal case and that
c
therefore the Court has in ali such cases to sift the evidence with care
and convict only those persons against whom the prosecution witnes-
ses can be safely relied upon without raising an"y element of doubt".
vide Raghubir Singh v. S1a1e of U.P .. AIR 1971 SC 2156. On a perusal
of the judgment of the High Court, we find that the necessary caution D
had not been observed in the approach to the evidence.

The occurrence happened on a narrow track. The deceased
Hanuwa was going ahead of his mother and his sister wa; still behind.
The witnesses noticed the assailants only when they approaci1ed the
deceased. The evidence is not clear that the assailants were seen by E
Baiyanbai or Birjhbai hiding behind the bushes and emerging fron1
the hiding place. Th. witnesses stated that the accused persons
surrounded the victim and e< :h one of them assaulted him with the
weapop they had. PW-1 stated that some of the assailants had given
more than one blow and Parsadi assaulted her when she tried to
intervene. If a group of mor.; than 15 persons encircled the victim and F
simultaneously attacked him with tabbals and lathis without any resis-
tance or any intervention, there would have been certainly corres-
ponding injuries of the concerted attack on the person of the victim.
We have referred to the medical evidence which shows that besides the
two incised wounds on the scalp which proved fatal Hanuwa had only
five mindr injuries on his person. PWs I and 5 did not state who caused G
the head injuries. They have not attempted to attribute any one of the
injuries to any particular assailant. The evidence is in general terms.
Even in the first information report, PW-I only stated that the persons
named therein attacked Hanuwa with tabbals and lathis and caused his
death. In a melee where several people are giving blows at one and the
same time it will be impossible to particularize the blows. If any wit- H
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

ness attempts to do it, his veracity is doubtful. But it cannot be
A
forgotten that it is simpler to make an omnibus statement that all the
accused assaulted with their weapons because that obviates close
cross-examination. Therefore, the nature of the injuries susta,ijied by
the victim assumes importance. The nature of the injury sustained in
spite of the assertion of the concerted attack with lathis and tabbals by
B sev.eral assailants numbering over 15 renders the evidence doubtful
about the participation of such a large number of persons. When the
several blows with lathis and tabbals could produce only seven injuries
on the person of the deceased, Hanuwa, the necessary inference is that
not more than seven persons might have participated in delivering the
blows. Therefore, the presence of more than seven persons is doubt-
ful. This aspect of the case has not been given due weight by the High
c Court while appreciating the evidence in the case.

"Where an occurrence takes place involving rival factions it is
but inevitable that the evidence would be of a partisan nature. In such
a situation to reject the entire evidence on the sole ground that it is
D interested is to shut one's eyes to the realities of the rural life in our
country. It has to be borne in mind that in such situation easy tendency
to involve as many persons of the opposite faction as pcr;sible by
merely naming them as having been seen in the melee is a tendency
which is more often discernible and has ·to be eschewed and, therefore,
the evidence has to be examined with utmost care and caution and the
E Court has to adopt a workable test for being assured about the role
attributed to every accused" vide Muthu Naicker v. State of Tamil
Nadu, [1978]4SCC385.

We have therefore to see whether the testimony of PW-1 and
PW-5 as against all or any of the appellants before us finds corrobora-
F lion with the material on record. The trial court had acquitted four
persons for the reason that their names had been left out in the narra-
tion at some stage or the other. PW- I before giving the first informa-
' ti on had deliberations witl1 her son PW-3. The finding of the trial court
is that in narrating the incidence to him, PW-1 had omitted to mention
the names of Arjun and Bhikam. Before Court, PW-1 did not impli-
G cate Nanku. The name of Parethan does not find a place in the F.l.R.
It is for these reasons the trial court acquitted them. On such acquittal,
it is clear that there had been conscious effort to rope in innocent
persons by merely naming them. Therefore, the apparent conflict bet-
ween the medical evidence and the eye-witness's account could not
have been overlooked. We are of the opinion that .the High Court has
H not observed the necessary caution in accepting the evidence in
BUDHWA '· STATE OF M.P. IFATHIMA BEEYI, J.l 107

general terms to uphold the conviction of all the appellants. A

We are thus constrained to consider whether there is any evi-
dence from independent sources to lend assurance to the version of
PWs 1 and 5 regarding the participation of any of these appellants. We
have indicated that the presence of at least seven persons at the scene
B
is probable having regard to the nature of the injuries and the manner
of the attack. It is also dear from the manner in which the incident
happened that the assailants acted in prosecution of the common object
to cause the death of the victim. We have no doubt in our mind that
more than five persons have actually participated in the crime. We
have clear evidence regarding the identity of only four persons. Appel-
lants Baran. Karan, Bhagau and Parsadi had been located by P'-'-4 c
and PW-6, two independent witnesses, in the locality just before the
incident. This evidence lends assurance to the testimony of PW-I and
PW-5 regarding their participation in the crime. We are of the view
that the conviction of these four persons i.e. Baran, Karan, Bhagau
and Parsadi has been rightly sustained. However, regarding the rest of
the appellants, there is scope of genuine doubt and we are obliged to D
give the benefit of doubt to them.

We accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence of the
appellants. ·namely. Budhwa. Chandu. Kushwa, Bhuwan, Rajaram.
Nanda. Chatur, Hari Gannu, Pardeshi and Dukhiram and they are
acquitted of the charges. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. E

The appeal is dismissed so far as Parsadi, Baran, Bhagau and
Karan are concerned. These appellants shall surrender to suffer the
unexpired portion of the sentence.

The appeal is disposed of as above. F

P.S.S. Appeal disposed of.