MAHENDRA RAIversusMITHILESH RAI AND ORS.

                            MAHENDRA RAI                                          A
                                      v.
                        MITHILESH RAI AND ORS.

                           DECEMBER 13, 1996

             [M.M. PUNCHHI AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.]                                 B

      Criminal Law :

      Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 : Section 174.

      Inquest report-Eye· witnesses-Evidence of-Who were also witnesses           C
to inquest report-Held: S.174(1) did not require mention of names of
assailants in inquest report-Hence such evidence could not be rejected
merely on ground of discrepancy regarding time of preparation of inquest
                                                 \
report and absence of names of assailants in it.

      Penal Code, 1860 : Section 302.
                                                                                  D

      Motiv~Trifling matter (dispute over price of milk) Held : commission
of offence depended on frame of mind-Trifling matter could lead to mur-
der-For there may be persons who took serious view of trifling matter.

      Criminal Trial.                                                             E
      Appreciation of evidence-Murdel'-High Court rejected evidence of eye
witnesses on ground of contradictions-Said witnesses not shown their case
diary statements recorded under S.161 Cr. P.C. from which contradictions
sought-Nor said contradictions exhibited and placed on record-Held: Con-
tradictions insignificant and minoT'-flence High Court emd in rejecting their     F
evidence and setting aside sentence of death imposed by trial court 011 accused
A-1 andA-2-Accordingly order of trial court convicting A-1 and A-2 under
S.302 !PC restored-However, death sentence 011 A-1 commuted to life
imprisonment and sentence of life imprisonment A-2 confirmed-Acquittal of
A-3 by High Court well founded, in absence of any cogent evidence against         G
him.

      Respondent No. 1 was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to capital punishment. Respondents Nos.
2 and 3 were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. However, the High Court ac- H
                                   81                                I
    82                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1996] SUPP.10 S.C.R.
A quitted all the respondents. Hence this appeal.
          According to the prosecution, there was some dispute and alterca-
    tion between the deceased and respondent No. 2 over the price of milk. On
    the same day when the deceased was sleeping respondent No. 1 alongwith
    respondents No. 2 went there. Respondent No. 2 caught hold of the head
B   of the deceased and respondent No. 1 gave a heavy blow by a Kakut
    (Chaffcutter) on the neck of the deceased. The incident was seen by PWs.
    7 to 11. The deceased died on the spot. The Police Officer, PW13, prepared
    an inquest report in the presence of PWs 7 and 8 and a First Information
    Report was lodged.
c        In the appeal before this Court, on behalf of the appellants it was
  contended that the High Court rejected the evidence of the eye witnesses,
  PWs 7 and 8, on the ground of discrepancy in the timings of preparation
  of inquest report and the absence of the names of the assailants in the
  same; and that the High Court wrongly rejected the evidence of the
D remaining eye witnesses, PWs 9 to 11, on the ground of minor discrepan-
  cies in their evidence without showing their case diary statements recorded
  under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 nor were the said
  contradictions exhibited and placed on record.

          On behalf of the respondents it was contended that a trifling matter
E
    like dispute over price of milk could hardly give rise to tbe commission of
    an offence like murder.

          Allowing the appeal partly, this Court

F       HELD 1. Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 con-
  templates the preparation of an inquest report by the police officer in the
  presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood and
  draw up a report of apparent cause of death, describing such wounds,
  fractures, bruises and other marks of injury as may be found on the body
  stating in what manner or by what weapon or instrument (if any) such
G marks appeared to have been inflicted. A perusal of Section 174(1) would
  go to show that it does not require anywhere to mention the names of
  assailants. It was, therefore, neither incumbent upon the police officer, PW
  13, who prepared the inquest report, to mention the names of the as-
  sailants nor was it necessary for the eye witnesses PWs 7 and 8 who are
H witnesses to the said inquest, to insist the mention of the names of the
                        MAHENDRARAI v. MJTiiILESH                             83

    assailants in the said inquest report. As regards the time of preparation       A
    of the inquest report it is hardly of any consequence in the present case.
    It is just possible that the witnesses did not remember the exact time of
    the preparation of the inquest after lapse of time. Their testimony, there·
    fore, cannot be rejected on his ground alone. [88-C·D; 89-A-B; 89-D]

           2. It is difficult to accept the contention of the respondent that a     B
    trifling matter like dispute over price of milk could hardly give rise to the
    commission of an offence like murder. Commission of an offence depends


-   on the frame of mind of the offender which could not be easily judged. There
    may be persons who may take a very serious view of a trifling matter and
    there may also be persons who may even ignore serious views. [87-H; 88-A]       C
          3. The rejection of the evidence of the eye witnesses, PWs. 9 to 11, by
    the High Court on the so called contradictions cannot be accepted for two
    reasons. Firstly, the discrepancies pointed out by the High Court are so
    insignificant and minor that thet hardly have any bearing on material
    aspect of the case so as to render the evidence unreliable or even doubtful.    D
    Secondly, the said witnesses were not shown their case diary statements
    recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. from which they were sought to be
    contradicted nor the said contradictions/omissions have been exhibited
    and placed on record. [89-E-FJ

           4. Accordingly, the judgment of the High Court acquitting respon-
                                                                                    E
    dents 1 and 2 is set aside. The judgment of the Trial Court in respect of
    respondents 1 and 2 is restored. The death sentence imposed on respondent
    1 is commuted to life imprisonment and the sentence of life imprisonment
    imposed on respondent 2 is confirmed. As regards respondent 3 his acquit·
    tal is well founded in the absence of any cogent evidence against him.          F
                                                                 [90-A-B; 89-H]
          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    Nos. 326-27 of 1990 Etc.

           From the Judgment and Order dated 8.12.89 of the Patna High Court        G
    in Cr!. A Nos. 272 and 307 of 1988.

          H.L. Aggarwal, Bharat Sangal and B.B. Singh for the Appellant.

         Uday Singh, (Yatish Mohan, Ms. Anu Mohla) for Ranjit Kumar for,
    the Respondents.                                                     H
    84                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS(l996] SUPP.10 S.C.R;
A        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          FAIZAN UDDIN, J. 1. These two sets of appeals one by the inform-
    ant Mahendra Rai, cousin brother of the deceased and another by the State
    of Bihar are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of
B   Patna passed in Criminal Appeal No. 272 and 307 of 1988 reversing the
    judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (I) Patna at
    Barh dated 20.5.1988 in Sessions Trial No. 135/1986 whereby the respon-
    dent No. 1 Mithilesh Rai was convicted under Section 302 for brutal
    murder of Arun Rai and sentenced to capital punishment, while the
    respondents 2 and 3, namely, Madan Rai and Raj Naresh Rai were
C   convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to
    undergo life imprisonment and other two co-accused, namely, Rajendra
    Raj and Ram Das Rai were acquitted.

          2. The prosecution case was that in the morning of 17.5.1985 there
D   was some dispute and altercation between the deceased Arun Rai, a boy
    aged about 12 years and the accused respondent No. 2 Madan Rai on the
    price of milk. The deceased Arun was insisting to sell the milk at the rate
    of Rs. 5 per litre while the respondent Madan Rai was not. agreeable for
    the same. This dispute infuriated the accused respondent No. 3 Raj Naresh
E   Rai as well as the acquitted accused Ram Das Rai and Rajendra Rai who
    according to the prosecution instigated the accused respondent No. 1 and
    2, Mithilesh Rai and Madan Rai to kill Arun Rai at any cost. It is alleged
    that on the same day at about 12 noon when deceased Arun Rai was
    sleeping on a cot under a mango tree in an orchard near his house, the
    accused respondent No. 1 armed with a Kakut, alongwith his cousin
F   respondent No. 2 Madan Rai went there. Accused Madan Rai caught hold
    head of Arun and the respondent Mithilesh Rai gave a heavy blow by a
    Kakut (chaffcutter) on the neck of Arun Rai. The incident was seen by
    Mahendra Rai, PW 11, Jagdish Rai, PW 7, Jageshwar Rai, PW 8,
    Kalicharan Rai, PW 9 and other persons who also tried to apprehend the
G   culprits but since they threatened them by saying that in case they
    proceeded further they would also meet the same fate. Thereafter the
    accused persons ran away towards their house. Victim Arun Rai died on
    the spot. According to the prosecution respondent no. 3 Raj NaresJi Rai
    is said to have handed over the weapon of offence to the respondent No.
H    1, Mithilesh Rai sometime before the occurrence, while the two other
               MAHENDRARAI v. MITHILFSH[FAIZANUDDIN,J.]                      85

      acquitted accused are held to have instigated and abetted their sons, A
      respondents 1 and ;l to commit the said murder sometimes in the morning
--·   on the date of occurrence.

             3. At about 3.30 PM on the date of occurrence Kailash Prasad, PW
      13, Officer Incharge of Police-Station Athmalgola received information      B
      about the commission of said murder, he, therefore, after making an entry
      in the Station Diary proceeded to village Dashinichak with a police party
      where he recorded Fardbeyan, Ext. 10 of Mahendra Rai, PW 11, the cousin
      of tlie deceased at about 5.30 PM on the basis of which a formal FIR Ext.
      12 was drawn under section 302/34 IPC against the 3 respondents and the
      acquitted accused. He prepared an inquest report Ext. 9 at the place of      C
      occurrence and seized bloodstained earth. The dead body of the deceased
      was sent to the hospital, Barh.

             4. In the Barh Hospital, Dr. Shankar Prasad Deokuliar PW 6 per-
      formed an autopsy on the dead body of Arnn Rai on 18.5.1985 who as per D
      his post mortem report found a clean cut would on the right side of the
      neck of the deceased extending from 1" left of midline beyond the lower
      angle of the mandible on the right side of the dimension 6" x 3", going deep
      up-to the vertebra. The doctor founcj an ellipsical clean cut wound of the
      size of 3/4" x 1/2" which was communicating to the aforesaid injury and was
      just to the left to that injury. He also found muscle, corpid vessels trachea E
      and desophaous severed. The doctor stated that both the said injuries were
      antemortem in nature and in his opinion the death was caused due to
      bleeding as a result of severing of corpid vessels. According to the opinion
      of the doctor both the aforesaid injuries could be possible even by a single
      blow by a Kakut (chaff-cutter).                                               F

            5. The three respondents as well as the two acquitted accused denied
      the guilt and pleaded false implication.. The respondent No. i and the two
      acquitted accused Rajendra Rai and Ram Das Rai took the plea of alibi.
      Respondent No. 1 Mithilesh stated that he was ill and was under the
      treatment of Dr. Mahato, DW 1 and was an indoor patient in his clinic G
      from 16.5.1985 to 19.5.1985. They adduced defence evidence in support of
      their plea. The Trial Court did not believe the morning incident regarding
      the altercation on the price of milk. The Trial Court, however, rejected the
      defence plea and the defence evidence as unreliable and relying on the
      prosecution evidence convicted the respondent No._ 1, Mithilesh Rai under H
    86                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS(1996J SUPP.10 S.C.R.

A Section 302 for committing the murder of Arun Rai and awarded death
  sentence and made a reference to the High Court for confirmation thereof
  as required by Section 366 (1) Cr. P.C. The respondent No. 1 Madan Rai
  and respondent No. 3 Raj Naresh Rai were also convicted under Section
  302 read with Section 109 IPC for aiding and abetting the commission of
B an offence of murder by Mithilesh. The Trial Court, however, found no ·
  reliable evidence with regard to the involvement of Rajendra Rai and Ram
  Das Rai in the crime and, therefore, they were acquitted of the offences
  they were charged with. On appeal by the respondents the High Court, as
  said earlier, rejected the death reference and allowed the appeals by setting
  aside the conviction and sentence awarded to the respondents and ac-
C quitted them against which the two appeals, one by the cousin of the
  deceased and another by the State have been preferred.

          6. Learned cotinsel for the appellant urged that the High Court has
    mis-appreciated_ the evidence of eye witnesses, namely, Jagdish Rai, PW 7
D   and Jageshwar Rai, PW 8. who are the eye- witnesses and also witnesses to
    the inquest report on the ground that they had not given out the names of
    the assailants, a mention of which should have been found in the inquest
    report. He also submitted that the evidence of remaining eye-witnesses,
    namely, Kalicharan Rai, PW 9 and Deopati Devi, PW 10 and the informant
    Mahendra Rai, PW 11 have been wrongly rejected on the ground of minor
E   discrepancies in their evidence. He further submitted that an unrealistic
    approach has been made by the High Court in appreciating the timings of
    the preparation of the inquest report Ext. 9, recording of Fardbeyan Ext.
    10 and the arrival of the dead body in the hospital which has resulted into
    total failure of justice. As against this the learned counsel appearing for
F   the respondents strongly supported the conclusions recorded and the view
    taken by the High Court in recording the order of acquittal. According to
    him the prosecution has failed to establish the genesis by reason of which
    the entire prosecution story becomes doubtful and the evidence of the so
    called by witnesses is nothing but based on concoction and deliberations.

G        7. In order to examine the aforementioned rival contentions, we have
  scrutinised the evidence and material on record by the assistance of
  learned counsel appearing for the parties. A perusal of the statement of
  the informant Mahendra Rai, PW 11 would reveal that he made a very
  assertive and categorical statement that at about mid day on 17.5.1988 when
H he along with Jageshwar Rai, PW 8 was sitting in his bathan situated on
               MAHENDRA RAJ v. MITHILF.sH [FAIZAN UDDIN, J.]                87
         I
     the south of mango tree under which Arun Rai was sleeping on a cot, he A
     saw the respondents 1 and 2, namely, Mithilesh Rai and Madan Rai going
     towards the cot on which Arun Rai was sleeping. He further deposed that
     respondent No. 2 Madan Rai caught hold the head of deceased Arnn Rai
     and the respondent No. 1 Mithilesh Rai made an assault on the neck of
     the deceased by the Kakut (chaff- cutter) with which he was armed. He B
     also deposed that when he and J ageshwar Rai, PW 8 made an attempt to
     catch hold the respondents 1 and 2 but they were threatened by them
     saying that they would also meet the same fate if they attempted to catch
     them and, therefore, they could not catch the assailants but raised an alarm.
     The assailants ran away towards their house. Mahendra Rai PW 11 also C
     stated that at that point of time J agdish Rai, PW 7 and Kalicharan Rai,
     PW 9 had also arrived there who were also threatened by respondent
     Mithilesh Rai, in case they tried to apprehend them. He also stated that
     on the arrival of the police Inspector Kailash Prasad, PW 13, he gave him
     Farbeyan, Ext. 10 to him about the occurrence giving out the names of the
     assailants. Similar is the evidence of J ageshwar Rai, PW 8. These two D
     witnesses, namely, Jageshwar Rai and Mahendra Rai have been fully
     corroborated on all material aspects by the other two eye witnesses,
     namely, Jagdish Rai, PW 7 and Kalicharan Rai PW 9 who have consistently
     deposed that they ·also saw the respondent No. 2 Madan Rai catching hold
     the head of deceased Arun and the respondent No. 1 Mithilesh Rai making E
     an assault on his neck by the Kakut. This evidence further finds support
,-   from the statement of Mst. Deopati Devi, PW 10 who was there with her
     minor son who was easying just near the mango tree under which this
     occurrence had taken place and she had herself witnessed the occurrence.
                                                                                 F
            8. We have also carefully perused the evidence of PW 1 Neeki Rai
      and Rao Deo Rai, PW 4 with regard to the morning altercation and dispute
      with the deceased on the payment of price of the milk but we do not find
      any infirmity to disbelieve their testimony. We are unable to appreciate the
      conclusion recorded by the Trial Court and accepted by the High Court
/
     ·that the said story is unbelievable. In our opinion the view taken by the G
      Trial Court and the High Court on this aspect cannot be accepted. It,


--    therefore, cannot be successfully contended that the prosecution case was
      wanting in the matter of genesis. It was, however, submitted by the learned
      counsel for the respondents before us that such a triffling matter can hardly
      give rise to the commission of an offence like murder. It is difficult to H
    88                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1996) SUFP. 10 S.C.R.               ''

A believe the submission as the commission of an offence depends on the
    frame of mind of the offender which could not be easily judged. There may
    be persons who may take a very serious view of a triffling matter and there
    may also be persons who may even ignore serious views.

          9. Coming to the evidence of eye witnesses Jagdish Rai, PW 7
B Jageshwar Rai, PW 8 it may be pointed out that their evidence has been
  rejected by the High Court merely on the ground of discrepancy in the
  timings of reparation of the inquest report Ext. 9 and the absence of the
  names of the assailants in the same. However, we find that the High Court
  committed a patent error in appreciating the same. It may be pointed out
C that inquest reports are prepared as envisaged in Section 174 (1) Cr. P.C.
  Section 174 Cr.P.C. contemplates the preparation of an inquest report by
  the police officer in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants
  of the neighbourhood and draw up a report of apparent cause of death,
  describing such wounds, fractures, bruises and other marks of injury as may
  be found on the body stating in what manner or by what weapon or
D instrument (if any) such marks appeared to have been inflicted. For ready
  reference sub-Section (1) of Section 174 Cr. P.C. is reproduced hereunder:

            "174. Police to enquire and report on suicide, etc. (1) When the
            officer-in-charge of a police sta~on or some other police officer
            specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf
E           received information that a person has committed suicidr., or has
            been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an
            accident, or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable
            suspicion that some other person has committed lln offence, he
            shall immediately give intimation thereof to the nearest Executive
            Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and, unless otherwise
F           directed by any rule prescribed by the State Government, or by
            any general or special order of the district or Sub-Divisional
            Magistrate, shall proceed to the place where the body of such
            deceased person is, and there, in the presence of two or more
            respectable inhabitant of the neighbourhood, shall make an inves-
G           tigation, and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death,
             describing such wounds, fractures brnises, and other marks of injury
             as may be found on the body, and stating in what manner, or by



H
             what weapon or instrnment (if any) such marks appears to have been
             inflicted."

                                                            (emphasis supplied)
                                                                                    -
          MAHENDRARAI v. MITHILESH[FAIZANUDDIN,J.]                      89

A perusal of Section 174(1) would go to show that it does not require A
anywhere to mention the names of assailants. It was, therefore, neither
incumbent upon the police officer Kailash Prasad, PW 13, who prepared
the inquest report, to mention the names of the assailants nor it was
necessary for the eye witnesses Jagdish Rai and Jageshwar Rai who are the
witnesses to the said inquest, to insist the mention of the names of the B
assailants in the said inquest report. As regard the time of the preparation
of the inquest report Ext. 9 is concerned it is hardly of· any consequence
in the present case. It is no doubt true that Jagdish Rai, PW 7 stated that
the inquest was prepared at about sunset which could not be said to be
correct statement because according to the High Court the dead body itself
was received in the hospital about 11 kms away from the place of occur- C
rence at about 5 PM but it may be noticed that there is no authentic and
reliable evidence that the dead body was received in the hospital at 5 PM.
This apart the statement of Jagdish Rai, P'N 7, was recorded in August
1986 while the incident had occurred in May 1985 more than a year before.
It is just possible that the witnesses did not remember the exact time of the .D
preparation of the inquest after suclr a long lapse. of time. His testimony,
therefore, cannot be rejected on this ground alone.


      10. We find that the High Court rejected the ocular versfon of the
informant Mahctndra Rai, PW 11, Kalicharan Rai, PW 9 Smt. Deopati E
Devi, PW 10, on the so called contradictions but the said view taken by the
High Court cannot be accepted for two reasons, firstly, the discrepiµicies
pointed out by the High Court are so insignificant and minor that they
hardly have any bearing on material aspect of the case so as to render the
evidence unreliable or even doubtful and secondly, the said witnesses were
not shown their case diary statements recorded under SectiOn 161 Cr. P.C. F
from which they were sought to be contradicted nor the said contradic-
tions/omissions have been exhibited and placed on record. That being so,
merely on the basis ol the statement of the police office Kailash Prasad,
PW 13 that the witnesses did not make the alleged statements cannot be
accepted without the relevant portions of their statements being exhibited. G
In these facts and circumstances we find that the High Court was clearly
at an error to record finding of innocence of the respondent No. 1 and 2,
namely, Mithilesh Rai and Madan Rai. So far as the respondent No. 3 Raj
Naresh Rai is concerned we find that his acquittal is well founded as in the
absence of any cogent evidence against him, no interference in his acquittal
can be made.                                                                 H
                                    I
    90                   SUPREME COURTREPORTS(1996) SUPP.10 S.C.R.

A      / 11. In the result we allow the appeals partly and set aside the
    judgment of the High Court so far as it relates to the acquittal of respon-
    dents 1 and 2. We restore the judgment and order of conviction recorded
    by the Trial Court convicting the respondent No. 1 Mithilesh Rai under
    Section 302 but modify his sentence by commuting the death sentence into
B   life sentence. We also uphold the conviction of respondent No. 2 Madan
    Rai under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentence him to
    undergo life imprisonment.

    v.s.s.                                                   Appeals allowed.