KARAN SINGHversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS

                        [2022] 2 S.C.R. 473                             473


                         KARAN SINGH                                    A
                                 v.
           THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 327 of 2022)
                         MARCH 02, 2022                                 B
 [INDIRA BANERJEE AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
       Penal Code, 1860: s.302 r/w s.149; s.307 r/w s.149 and s.148
– Conviction of appellant along with other accused by trial court
as well as by High Court under the aforesaid sections – Prosecution
                                                                        C
case was that there was dispute between the prime accused and the
victim-deceased over the price of buffalo for which the deceased
stopped the prime accused from harvesting his crops – On the fateful
day, six accused persons armed with rifles and guns came to the
site of occurrence where the deceased had come to collect the price
of buffalo – When the deceased asked for money, the prime accused       D
opened fire with his rifle and shot the deceased which hit his head
– Thereafter, the associates of prime accused also opened fire from
their respective weapons, whereafter complainant and others ran
away – One shot hit ‘M’ – Trial Court convicted the accused persons,
inter alia, for murder and sentenced them, inter alia, to undergo
                                                                        E
life imprisonment – While the appeal was pending before High Court,
five out of six accused persons died – Only the appellant was alive
– High Court did not find any major contradiction either in the
evidence of the witnesses or any conflict in medical or ocular
evidence, which could tilt the balance in favour of the appellant –
Appeal against conviction – Held: The tenor of the evidence of the      F
doctor who conducted the post mortem supported the case of the
prosecution witnesses that all the accused persons, who were present,
carrying arms had fired – The injured witness ‘M’ may not have
specifically named the appellant – However, two of the other eye-
witnesses, that is, PW2 and PW3 confirmed that he was present at
                                                                        G
the place of occurrence and was carrying rifle – PW3 saw appellant
fire – Prosecution was required to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt, which it did – The fact that one of the injured witnesses may
not have mentioned the name of appellant would not demolish the
evidence of the other witnesses – No ground to interfere with the
concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court.              H
                                473
474           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A          Dismissing the appeal, the Court
            HELD: 1. The Appellant’s presence has been proved by
      two eye witnesses. It has been proved by the eye witnesses, that
      the Appellant carried a rifle. But PW2 and PW3 deposed that all
      the accused had opened fire. The prosecution was required to
B     prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which it has done, and
      not beyond all iota of doubt. The fact that one of the injured
      witnesses may not have mentioned the name of Appellant does
      not demolish the evidence of the other witnesses. [Para 46]
      [485-F-H]
C          Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC
           434 : [2013] 3 SCR 884; Narayan Chetanram
           Chaudhary and Another v. State of Maharashtra AIR
           2000 SC 3352 : [2000] 3 Suppl. SCR 104; Kuriya and
           Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 10 SCC 433 : [2012]
           10 SCR 570; Shyamlal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal
D          (2012) 7 SCC 646 : [2012] 10 SCR 95 – relied on.
           Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab AIR 1952 SC 354
           : [1953] SCR 94; Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v.
           State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343 : [1952]
           SCR 1091; Mrinal Das and Others v. State of Tripura AIR
E          2011 SC 3753 : [2011] 14 SCR 411; Navaneethakrishnan
           v. State By Inspector of Police (2018) 16 SCC 161 :
           [2018] 6 SCR 749 – referred to.
                           Case Law Reference

F     [1953] SCR 94                referred to             Para 31
      [1952] SCR 1091              referred to             Para 31
      [2011] 14 SCR 411            referred to             Para 32
      [2018] 6 SCR 749             referred to             Para 33
G     [2013] 3 SCR 884             relied on               Para 41
      [2000] 3 Suppl. SCR 104      relied on               Para 42
      [2012] 10 SCR 570            relied on               Para 43
      [2012] 10 SCR 95             relied on               Para 44
H
    KARAN SINGH v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS                            475


      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.                     A
327 of 2022.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.1813 of 1983.
      Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv., Sanjeev Agarwal, Ekansh Agarwal,
Advs. for the Appellant.                                                       B

       Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Rohit Pandey, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Advs.
for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      INDIRA BANERJEE, J.                                                      C
      1. Leave granted.
        2. This Appeal is against a judgment and order dated 30th July
2018 passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, dismissing
Criminal Appeal No. 1813 of 1983 filed by the Appellant along with
                                                                               D
other accused persons, against a judgment and order of conviction dated
1st August 1983 passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 268 of 1981, inter alia, convicting
the Appellant of the offences under Section 302 read with Section 149,
Section 307 read with Section 149 and Section 148 of the Indian Penal
Code (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”) and sentencing him, inter          E
alia, to life imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 302 read
with Section 149 of the IPC.
        3. It appears that the Appellant had been granted bail by the Trial
Court by an order dated 13th June 1980. The High Court also granted
bail to the Appellant during the entire period of the appeal. The Appellant    F
was taken into custody on 9th September 2019 after dismissal of his
appeal by the High Court.
       4. It is the case of the Prosecution that on 8th April 1980, at about
12:15 P.M., one Rati Pal arrived at Kaanth Police Station and filed a
complaint alleging that eight days before Holi, one Rajkumar Singh had         G
purchased a buffalo from his elder brother Brahmapal Singh at the price
of Rs. 1,900/-.
       5. The said Rajkumar had promised to pay the price of the buffalo
to the complainant’s elder brother, Brahmapal Singh, eight days after
Holi.                                                                          H
476            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A           6. Rajkumar Singh, however, did not pay the price of the buffalo
      to the complainant’s elder brother, Brahmapal Singh as promised.
      Brahmapal Singh did not permit Rajkumar Singh to harvest his crops.
            7. On 7th April 1980, Rajkumar Singh asked Brahmapal Singh to
      come to Simra Khera the next day, that is, 8th April 1980, to collect his
B     money.
             8. On 8th April 1980, the complainant’s cousin brother, Mahendra
      Singh came to the complainant’s house and asked Brahmapal Singh to
      go to Simra Khera with him to collect his money from Rajkumar Singh
      after settling accounts with him. Thereafter, the complainant’s brother-
C     in-law (Shreepal Singh), Brahmapal Singh, the complainant, a villager
      Badshah Singh and Mahendra Singh went to Simra Khera. They went
      to the house of Sher Singh Thakur and sat on a cot in the sitting area.
             9. Mahendra Singh called Rajkumar Singh, who came with a rifle
      in his hand along with the Appellant, Karan Singh, who was also armed
D     with a rifle, Sukhlal armed with a single barrel gun, Jagdish Singh armed
      with a single barrel gun, Harpal Singh armed with a single barrel gun and
      Nankoo Singh armed with a double barrel gun.
              10. At about 9:00 A.M., Brahmapal Singh asked for his money.
      Harpal Singh asked Rajkumar Singh to discharge his debt to Brahmapal
E     Singh as soon as possible. At this, Rajkumar Singh opened fire with his
      rifle and shot Brahmapal Singh. The bullet hit his head. Brahmapal Singh
      fell down unconscious.
             11. Thereafter, the associates of Rajkumar Singh, that is, Harpal
      Singh, Karan Singh, Jagdish Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Nankoo Singh
F     opened fire from their respective weapons. After the associates of
      Rajkumar Singh opened fire, the complainant, Badshah Singh, Shreepal
      Singh and Mahendra Singh ran away from the spot. Out of the shots
      fired from the side of the accused, one shot hit Mahendra Singh. The
      complainant and other eyewitnesses ran into Sher Singh Thakur’s house.
      When they returned to the place of occurrence, they found Brahmapal
G     Singh dead.
            12. After the FIR was lodged, the Investigating Officer investigated
      the case and after completion of investigation submitted chargesheet
      against the accused persons Rajkumar Singh, Harpal Singh, Jagdish Singh,
      Karan Singh, Sukhlal Singh and Nankoo Singh under Sections 148, 302/
H     149 and 307/149 of the IPC.
    KARAN SINGH v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS                            477
                  [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

      13. The Fifth Prosecution Witness (PW5) Dr. P. K. Gupta who              A
had conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of the
deceased found several gunshot injuries on the body.
        14. The Appellant and other accused persons were tried by the
Sessions Court. The prosecution examined six witnesses, namely, the
first Prosecution Witness, Dr. R.N. Rastogi (PW1), Rati Pal Singh (PW2),       B
Shreepal Singh (PW3), Mahendra Singh (PW4), Dr. P.K. Gupta (PW5)
and the Investigating Officer (IO) Jagdish Singh (PW6).
      15. By a judgment and order dated 1st August 1983, the Trial
Court convicted the accused persons, inter alia, for murder and
sentenced them, inter alia, to undergo life imprisonment.                      C
       16. The Trial Court found the testimonies of the eye-witnesses
were reliable. The Trial Court further found there was motive to kill the
deceased and this was proved by the witnesses produced by the
Prosecution. All accused persons had come to the spot with deadly
weapons with intention to kill the deceased. All the accused had fired on      D
the deceased with their firearms, as a result of which the deceased had
sustained 16 bullet injuries.
       17. As observed above, the Appellant along with other convicted
persons filed Criminal Appeal No. 1813 of 1983 which has been dismissed
by the High Court by the judgment and order under appeal. While the            E
appeal was pending before the High Court, five out of six accused persons
died. Only the Appellant is alive.
       18. The High Court did not find any major contradiction either in
the evidence of the witnesses or any conflict in medical or ocular evidence,
which could tilt the balance in favour of the Appellant. The High Court        F
observed that minor discrepancies and/or improvements and/or
embellishments were insignificant and ought to be ignored in view of the
overwhelming corroborative evidence of the other witnesses.
       19. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the Appellant submitted that the police recovered two articles       G
which were produced in evidence. They produced blood-stained clothes
of the injured witness Mahender Singh marked as Exhibit Ka-13 and the
blood-stained mud and normal mud recovered from the alleged site of
the incident which is marked as Exhibit Ka-12. Mr. Sinha argued that
there was no recovery of the weapon of crime.                                  H
478            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A             20. The 11 exhibits tendered in evidence were (i) Medical Report
      of injuries sustained by the injured witness Mahender Singh, (ii) The
      complaint made by the complainant to the Investigating Officer, (iii) Post
      Mortem Report of the deceased, (iv) Pallets recovered from the body of
      the deceased, (v) Incident Report entered by the constable on the basis
      of the FIR, (vi) Case diary submitted by the I.O., (vii) Panchnama etc.,
B
      (viii) Site plan of the place of occurrence, (ix) Sample of blood-stained
      mud and normal mud collected from the site by the I.O., (x) Blood-
      stained clothes of the injured witness Mahender Singh and (xi)
      Chargesheet drawn by the police upon conclusion of investigation, as is
      evident from the records.
C           21. The Prosecution, as observed, had examined six Prosecution
      Witnesses namely, Dr. R.N. Rastogi (PW1), Ratipal Singh (PW2),
      Shreepal Singh (PW3), Mahendra Singh (PW4), Dr. P.K. Gupta (PW5)
      and Jagdish Singh (Investigating Officer).
             22. Mr. Sinha submitted that it was the case of the Prosecution
D     that there was dispute between the prime accused Rajkumar Singh and
      the deceased Brahmapal Singh over the price of buffalo for which
      Brahmapal Singh stopped Rajkumar Singh from harvesting his crops.
      There was no dispute or enmity between the Appellant and the deceased.
             23. Mr. Sinha further argued that it has been alleged that of the
E     six accused persons, Rajkumar Singh and Karan Singh were carrying
      rifles with them, the others carried single/double guns. However, the
      witnesses did not see any of the other accused persons except Rajkumar
      Singh firing at the deceased. There is, therefore, no eye-witness against
      Karan Singh.
F             24. Mr. Sinha argued that no weapon alleged to have been used
      by the Appellant was either recovered or produced by the police in course
      of trial. Mr. Sinha argued that the main injured witness Mahendra Singh
      had testified that he had not seen the Appellant at the spot when the
      incident took place. The Prosecution has not declared this witness hostile
G     but relied upon on his evidence.
             25. Mr. Sinha further argued that it is alleged that injured witness
      Mahender Singh is a relative of the Appellant Karan Singh. This is contrary
      to the admission of the complainant as contained in the FIR itself. Mr.
      Sinha argued that Mahender Singh is not a relative of Karan Singh but a
      close relative of Rati Pal and Brahmapal Singh.
H
    KARAN SINGH v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS                            479
                  [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

       26. Mr. Sinha further argued that medical examination of the injured    A
witness Mahender Singh and the post mortem report of the deceased
Brahmapal Singh revealed that all the injuries inflicted on both the persons
were gunshot injuries. No injury has been caused from the rifle. The
body of the deceased contained pellets fired from the gun. There is no
injury caused by bullets fired from rifle.
                                                                               B
       27. Mr. Sinha argued that the Investigating Officer had stated
that there was no recovery of any empty cartridge or bullet from the
site. No scattered gun pellets were recovered from the site. There was
no witness from the village even though the village had a population of
700-800 people. The villagers had only stated that they had heard of the       C
incident.

       28. Mr. Sinha argued that the Trial Court had in its judgment
recorded that “since Raj Kumar fired a shot from rifle & his
companions were armed with guns, therefore the witnesses got
panicked & they never tried to know the truth that whether in reality          D
the bullet of rifle ever hit Brahmapal or not. The best witness to
state this reality could have been deceased Brahmapal himself that
whether the bullet fired by Rajkumar ever hit him or not, or did he
fell on the takht just because he got panicked since the bullet merely
travelled from near his head. Since Brahmapal is dead therefore in             E
this situation there is no witness left to prove this fact that whether
the bullet fired by Rajkumar ever hit Brahmapal or not. Therefore,
even in this situation where there is no injury mark of bullet rifle on
the head of deceased Brahmapal, no effect is caused on the case of
the prosecution because under panic nobody is in this situation
where he can assess the reality.”                                              F

       29. According to Mr. Sinha, this establishes that the conviction
made by the Trial Court was only based on assumption/presumption.
Mr. Sinha argued that all the prosecution witnesses namely, PW2, PW3
and PW4 had stated that, as soon as the first shot was fired by Rajkumar       G
Singh from his rifle towards Brahmapal Singh, they all ran away with
their back towards the accused and they did not see who had fired but
had nevertheless heard gun shots. Hence, none of the witnesses had
deposed as to which of the accused was involved in firing apart from
Rajkumar Singh.
                                                                               H
480             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A            30. Mr. Sinha argued that the Trial Court erred in holding that
      the aforesaid material factors were minor contradictions and minor
      lapses on the part of the Prosecution and proceeded to convict all the
      accused persons guilty beyond doubt. Mr. Sinha argued that the Trial
      Court had completely ignored the chain of evidence to wrongly conclude
      that the accused persons were guilty, particularly the Appellant Karan
B
      Singh.
             31. Mr. Sinha further argued that as per settled law, the doctrine
      of severability does not apply in the case of a statement of a witness in
      a criminal trial. Either the whole statement has to be discarded by
      declaring the witness hostile or else the entire statement has to be relied
C     upon. In this context Mr. Sinha cited Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab1,
      and Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2.
      In Palvinder Kaur (supra) this court held that a statement that contains
      self-exculpatory matter cannot amount to a confession, if the exculpatory
      statement is of some fact, which if true, would negative the offence
D     alleged to be confessed. In Hanumant (supra) this Court held:-
             “…It is settled law that an admission made by a person
             whether amounting to a confession or not cannot be split up
             and part of it used against him. An admission must be used
             either as a whole or not at all. If the statement of the accused
E            is used as a whole, it completely demolishes the prosecution
             case and, if it is not used at all, then there remains no material
             on the record from which any inference could be drawn that
             the letter was not written on the date it bears.”
              32. The judgments of this Court in Palvinder Kaur (supra) and
F     in Hamunant (supra), which pertain to confession and/or admission are
      distinguishable on facts. On the other hand, in Mrinal Das and Others
      v. State of Tripura3, this Court held that it is well settled that in a criminal
      trial, credible evidence of even hostile witnesses can form the basis of
      conviction.

G           33. Mr. Sinha also referred to Navaneethakrishnan v. State By
      Inspector of Police4, where this Court re-affirmed: -

      1
        AIR 1952 SC 354
      2
        AIR 1952 SC 343
      3
        AIR 2011 SC 3753
      4
H       (2018) 16 SCC 161
    KARAN SINGH v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS                          481
                  [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

      “…every incriminating circumstance must be clearly                     A
      established by reliable and clinching evidence and the
      circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from
      which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the
      accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against
      the guilt is possible.”
                                                                             B
       34. Mr. Sinha concluded by submitting that the Prosecution has
failed to prove Appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. There were
clear discrepancies in evidence visible on the face of the record. The
appeal therefore ought to be allowed.
       35. On the other hand, on behalf of the State, Mr. Sanjay Kumar       C
Tyagi, Advocate on Record, submitted that this Court should not interfere
with a concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the High Court.
      36. On post mortem, the dead body of the deceased was found to
have a large number of gun shots, multiple shot wounds. Some bullets
penetrated and exited the body. The injured Mahender Singh had               D
medically been examined by Dr. R.N. Rastogi, who had found gunshot
wounds, pellet injuries etc.
      37. Mr. Tyagi argued and rightly that the Prosecution case was
proved from the statements of three eye witnesses namely, Rati Pal
(PW2), Shivpal (PW3) and Mahender Singh (PW4), apart from PW1                E
being the Doctor who had examined injured witnesses and PW5 being
the Doctor who had conducted the post mortem.
       38. As argued by Mr. Tyagi, there may have been some minor
discrepancies in the evidence of the PW’s. However, all material
particulars have been corroborated. PW2 and PW3 more or less                 F
corroborated the prosecution story. They both said that the Appellant
Karan Singh was there at the place of occurrence with a rifle. They said
the accused Raj Kumar Singh opened fire first, after which all the others
started firing. PW2 said he did not actually see the others firing, but he
heard the sound of firing from which he knew that the others were firing
bullets. However, PW2 categorically stated that all the others had opened    G
fire. When the accused opened fire all these three PWs ran away. They
went inside the house of Sher Singh. When they came out after a few
minutes they found Brahmapal dead. PW4, Mahender Singh, the injured
witness has not, however, named Karan Singh. No question was put to
him as to whether he had seen Karan Singh.
                                                                             H
482               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A            39. PW1, Dr. R.N. Rastogi who had examined Mahender Singh
      said that he had been hit on the back. This tallies with the version of the
      PWs that he was hit by bullet while they were all running away. PW5,
      being the Doctor who conducted the post mortem on the body of the
      deceased said he found gunshot injury on the center of the forehead, 3
      centimetre above the nose. Many bones of the head were fractured. He
B
      described various other gunshot wounds. There were multiple gunshot
      wounds. There were also gunshot wounds of exit of bullets apart from
      gunshot wounds of entry. The thigh bone was fractured. Upon internal
      examination, brain was ruptured, right and left membrane were ruptured,
      lungs were ruptured. 45 pellets, small and large were recovered. The
C     Doctor opined that the cause of death was bleeding and shock caused by
      the injuries. He opined that all the injuries were sufficient to cause death.
             40. The tenor of the evidence of the Doctor who conducted the
      post mortem tends to support the case of the prosecution witnesses that
      all the accused persons, who were present, carrying arms had fired.
D     The injured witness Mahender Singh may not have specifically named
      the Appellant Karan Singh. However, two of the other eye-witnesses,
      that is, PW2 and PW3 confirmed that he was present at the place of
      occurrence and was carrying rifle. PW3 had seen the Appellant Karan
      Singh fire.
             41. From the evidence of Mahender Singh, PW-4, it appears that
E     no specific question was put to him as to whether the Appellant was
      present at the place of occurrence or not. This Court, in Rohtash Kumar
      v. State of Haryana5 held:-
             “24. ... The court has to examine whether evidence read as a
             whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is
F            formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinise
             the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies,
             drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a
             whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the
             general tenor of the evidence given by the witnesses and
             whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken, as to
G
             render it unworthy of belief. Thus, the court is not supposed to
             give undue importance to omissions, contradictions and
             discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter, and
             shake the basic version of the prosecution witness...”
      5
H         (2013) 14 SCC 434
    KARAN SINGH v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS                        483
                  [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

       42. Referring to Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and Another            A
v. State of Maharashtra6, Mr. Tyagi argued that minor discrepancies
caused by lapses in memory were acceptable, contradictions were not.
In this case, there was no contradiction, only minor discrepancies.

       43. In Kuriya and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan7, this Court held:
                                                                           B
       “30. This Court has repeatedly taken the view that the
       discrepancies or improvements which do not materially affect
       the case of the prosecution and are insignificant cannot be
       made the basis for doubting the case of the prosecution. The
       courts may not concentrate too much on such discrepancies           C
       or improvements. The purpose is to primarily and clearly sift
       the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the
       testimony of the witnesses. Where it does not affect the core
       of the prosecution case, such discrepancy should not be
       attached undue significance. The normal course of human
       conduct would be that while narrating a particular incident,        D
       there may occur minor discrepancies. Such discrepancies may
       even in law render credential to the depositions. The
       improvements or variations must essentially relate to the
       material particulars of the prosecution case. The alleged
       improvements and variations must be shown with respect to           E
       material particulars of the case and the occurrence. Every
       such improvement, not directly related to the occurrence, is
       not a ground to doubt the testimony of a witness. The credibility
       of a definite circumstance of the prosecution case cannot be
       weakened with reference to such minor or insignificant
                                                                           F
       improvements. Reference in this regard can be made to the
       judgments of this Court in Kathi Bharat Vajsur v. State of
       Gujarat 8 , Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of
       Maharashtra 9 , Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan 10 and
       Sukhchain Singh v. State of Haryana 11.
                                                                           G
6
  AIR 2000 SC 3352
7
  (2012) 10 SCC 433
8
  (2012) 5 SCC 724
9
  (2000) 8 SCC 457
10
   (2001) 2 SCC 205
11
   (2002) 5 SCC 100                                                        H
484             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A             31. What is to be seen next is whether the version presented
              in the Court was substantially similar to what was said during
              the investigation. It is only when exaggeration fundamentally
              changes the nature of the case, the Court has to consider
              whether the witness was stating the truth or not. [(Ref. Sunil
              Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)] 12.
B
              32. These are variations which would not amount to any
              serious consequences. The Court has to accept the normal
              conduct of a person. The witness who is watching the murder
              of a person being brutally beaten by 15 persons can hardly
C             be expected to a state a minute by minute description of the
              event. Everybody, and more particularly a person who is
              known to or is related to the deceased, would give all his
              attention to take steps to prevent the assault on the victim and
              then to make every effort to provide him with the medical aid
              and inform the police. The statements which are recorded
D             immediately upon the incident would have to be given a little
              leeway with regard to the statements being made and recorded
              with utmost exactitude. It is a settled principle of law that
              every improvement or variation cannot be treated as an
              attempt to falsely implicate the accused by the witness. The
E             approach of the court has to be reasonable and practicable.
              Reference in this regard can be made to Ashok Kumar v. State
              of Haryana13 and Shivlal v. State of Chhattisgarh14.”
              44. In Shyamlal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal15, this Court
      held:
F
              “46. Then, it was argued that there are certain discrepancies
              and contradictions in the statement of the prosecution
              witnesses inasmuch as these witnesses have given different
              timing as to when they had seen the scuffling and
              strangulation of the deceased by the accused. …………
G             Undoubtedly, some minor discrepancies or variations are
              traceable in the statements of these witnesses. But what the

      12
         (2003) 11 SCC 367
      13
         (2010) 12 SCC 350
      14
         (2011) 9 SCC 561
      15
H        (2012) 7 SCC 646
       KARAN SINGH v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS                         485
                     [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

         Court has to see is whether these variations are material and         A
         affect the case of the prosecution substantially. Every variation
         may not be enough to adversely affect the case of the
         prosecution.
         49. It is a settled principle of law that the court should examine
         the statement of a witness in its entirety and read the said          B
         statement along with the statement of other witnesses in order
         to arrive at a rational conclusion. No statement of a witness
         can be read in part and/or in isolation. We are unable to see
         any material or serious contradiction in the statement of these
         witnesses which may give any advantage to the accused.”               C
                                                      16
         45. In Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana , this Court held:-
         “24. ... The court has to examine whether evidence read as a
         whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression
         is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to
         scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the         D
         deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the
         evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it
         is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the
         witnesses and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence
         is shaken, as to render it unworthy of belief. Thus, the court        E
         is not supposed to give undue importance to omissions,
         contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart
         of the matter, and shake the basic version of the prosecution
         witness...”
      46. As argued by Mr. Tyagi, appearing for the State both PW2             F
and PW3 had clearly mentioned that the Appellant and PW4 Mahender
Singh were both present at the place of occurrence. The Appellant’s
presence has been proved by two eye witnesses. It has been proved by
the eye witnesses, that the Appellant carried a rifle. But PW2 and PW3
deposed that all the accused had opened fire. The prosecution was
                                                                               G
required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which it has done,
and not beyond all iota of doubt. The fact that one of the injured witnesses
may not have mentioned the name of Appellant Karan Singh does not
demolish the evidence of the other witnesses.
16
     (2013) 14 SCC 434                                                         H
486              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A            47. We find no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings
      of the Trial Court and the High Court. The fact that the trial/appeal
      should have taken years and that other accused should have died during
      the appeal cannot be a ground for acquittal of the Appellant. The appeal
      is thus dismissed.
B
      Devika Gujral                                            Appeal dismissed.




C




D




E




F




G




H