Supreme Court of India
MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Citation
- 2018 INSC 594
- Decided
- 10 July 2018
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- RANJAN GOGOI
Holding
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's conviction, confirming that the evidence of the eyewitnesses was reliable and sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
Summary
The case arose from a factional clash in which the deceased, Machindra Joshi, was attacked with swords, knives and a motorcycle chain by the appellants Motiram Padu Joshi, Ratan Maruti Vaskar, Devidas Maruti Vaskar and Ramnath Joshi, leading to his death. The trial court acquitted all accused, holding that the eyewitnesses were unreliable, but the High Court reversed the acquittal, finding the testimony of eye‑witnesses PW‑2, PW‑3 and PW‑4 credible and corroborated by medical findings and recovered weapons. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the non‑mention of PW‑3 and PW‑4 in the FIR, the relationship of PW‑2 to the victim, and the witnesses' failure to intervene could defeat the prosecution case. The Court held that a FIR need not contain every detail, that a witness’s reaction is not a basis for disbelieving testimony, and that the High Court correctly re‑appreciated the evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and upheld the life sentences.
Issues considered
- The trial court's acquittal was based on alleged unreliability of eyewitnesses; was this error?
- Does the omission of eye‑witness names in the FIR invalidate the prosecution's case?
- Can the relationship of a witness to the victim or his failure to act be a ground to discard his testimony?
- Does an appellate court have the power to re‑appreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal?
- Is the evidence of PW‑2, PW‑3 and PW‑4 sufficient to sustain a conviction under s.302 r/w s.149 IPC?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 307
Subjects
murderfactional violencewitness credibilityFIR omissionappeal against acquittalre‑appreciation of evidenceIPC s.302IPC s.149criminal lawevidence law
Judgment
[2018] 9 S.C.R. 267 267
MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI AND OTHERS A
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1479 of 2015)
JULY 10, 2018 B
[RANJAN GOGOI AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.147, 148 and 302 r/w s.149 – Faction
rivalry – Murder – Appeal against conviction – On the fateful day,
victim-deceased was lying on the cot in the courtyard and PWs 3
C
and 4 were sitting near him – PW-2 went inside and was taking
meal – Appellants along with other accused armed with deadly
weapons like swords, knife, sticks and motor cycle chain came to
the courtyard of the house of deceased – A-3 and A-8 assaulted
the deceased with sword on his head, A-5 attacked with sword on
his legs, A-7 attacked with knife on his foot and legs – Other accused D
attacked deceased with motor cycle chain and sticks – PW- 3 and 4
got frightened and ran inside the house and stood near the window
and witnessed the incident – Deceased was grievously injured and
was rushed to hospital where he succumbed to the injuries – Trial
court held that prosecution was not able to prove the guilt of accused
E
beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted all the accused – High Court
held that evidence of PWs 2 to 4 as to the overt act of accused was
consistent and corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of
weapons and reversed the acquittal of all accused except A-2 – On
appeal, plea of appellants was that evidence of PW-2 was not
believable as he was present in the house and did not go to rescue F
his brother and remained mute spectator – Held: Evidence of witness
is not to be disbelieved simply because he has not reacted in a
particular manner – Likewise, the relationship of PW-2 with the
deceased cannot be the reason for doubting the testimony of PW-2
– Medical evidence also lent assurance to the evidence of PWs 2 to
G
4 – Prompt registration of FIR and recovery of incriminating weapons
on disclosure statements of accused also strengthened the
prosecution case – Trial court did not properly appreciate the
evidence and its findings are perverse – When the approach of the
trial court is perverse, in an appeal against the order of acquittal,
H
267
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.
A a duty is cast upon the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence –
As observed by the High Court, the trial court gave importance to
insignificant aspects like “smearing of the thighs and legs of the
body with mud” and the conduct of the witnesses as to why they
have not reacted in a particular manner and while doing so, the
trial court failed to appreciate the substratum of the prosecution
B
case – High Court on being satisfied that the conclusion reached
by the trial court was erroneous reversed the order of acquittal
recorded by the trial court – There is no ground to interfere with the
judgment of the High Court – The conviction of the appellants under
s.302 r/w s.149 is confirmed and the sentence of life imprisonment
C imposed upon each of them is confirmed.
Criminal Law – Evidence – FIR – Non-mention of names of
eye-witnesses in FIR – Effect on prosecution case – Evidence of
PWs 3 and 4 is sought to be assailed on the ground that their names
were not mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR) and that
D they are interested witnesses – Held: Deceased was critically injured
and when he was taken to the police station, on seeing his serious
condition, deceased was sent to the hospital along with police
constable – PW-2 remained in the police station to lodge the
complaint and his statement was recorded – His brother having been
critically injured, PW-2 must have been in a disturbed mind and
E must have been in a hurry to rush to the hospital to save his brother
– Thus, non-mention of the names of eye witnesses (PWs 3 and 4) in
the FIR should be examined in the situation in which PW-2 was
placed – FIR..
Evidence – Reaction of witness in a particular manner – Held:
F On witnessing a crime, each person reacts in his own way and their
evidence cannot be doubted on the ground that the witness has not
acted in a particular manner – Witness.
Appeal – Appeal against acquittal – Scope of interference,
discussed.
G
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 FIR is not an encyclopedia which is expected
to contain all the details of the prosecution case. It may be
sufficient if the broad facts of the prosecution case about the
occurrence appear. Omission as to the names of the assailants or
H
MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF 269
MAHARASHTRA
the witnesses may not all the times be fatal to the prosecution, if A
the FIR is lodged without delay. Unless there are indications of
fabrication, the court cannot reject the prosecution case as given
in the FIR merely because of omission. In the instant case, FIR
was registered without delay and prompt registration of FIR itself
lends assurance to the prosecution case. The object of the FIR
B
is to set the law in motion. Omission to give the names of
assailants or the names of witnesses in the FIR is not fatal to the
prosecution case. [Para 14] [276-A-C]
1.2 Evidence of PWs 3 and 4 is assailed on the ground that
PWs 3 and 4 have not gone to the rescue of the deceased and it
is quite unbelievable that on seeing the accused who were armed C
with weapons, both of them went inside the house. In their
evidence, PWs 3 and 4 have stated that on seeing number of
accused armed with deadly weapons got frightened and went
inside the house and stood near the window and saw the
occurrence. Their evidence cannot be doubted on the ground D
that they did not intervene in the attack nor made attempts to
save the deceased. On witnessing a crime, each person reacts in
his own way and their evidence cannot be doubted on the ground
that the witness has not acted in a particular manner. The evidence
of PWs 3 and 4 cannot be doubted merely because they have not
acted in a particular manner. [Para 15] [276-D-F] E
1.3 While appreciating the evidence of witness, approach
must be whether the evidence of witness read as a whole appears
to have a ring of truth and consistent with the prosecution case
or to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the case.
Their evidence cannot be doubted merely because they belong F
to opposite faction. All that is required is that their evidence is
to be scrutinized with care and caution. On testing the evidence
of PWs 2 to 4, the High Court found that their evidence is
consistent and credit worthy. There is no reason to take a
different view. The evidence of PWs 2 to 4 is corroborated by G
medical evidence. Further, PW-14 opined that nineteen to
fourteen injuries could have been caused by swords. Oral
evidence of PWs 2 to 4 is thus corroborated by the medical
evidence. PW-14 conducted the post-mortem has noticed that
“half of the stomach with rice is not digested”. PW-14 opined that
H
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.
A the deceased died within two hours of his last meal which again is
consistent with the evidence of PWs 2 to 4. Medical evidence of
PW-14 lends assurance to the evidence of PWs 2 to 4.
[Paras 17 and 18] [277-C-F]
2. PW-16, Investigating Officer had recovered blood-stained
B quilt from the scene of occurrence i.e. courtyard of house of the
deceased and also blood-stained mud and sample mud. Chemical
Analysis Report showed presence of ‘A’ group blood in the quilt.
While narrating the occurrence, eye witnesses have stated that
after the attack, the deceased had fallen down from the cot; in
that course, thighs and legs of the deceased might have been
C smeared with mud. The presence of mud on the thighs and legs
therefore does not raise doubts about the prosecution case. This
is too insignificant a fact to give importance so as to disbelieve
and discard the entire prosecution case as such. [Para 20]
[278-C-E]
D 3. In an appeal against the order of acquittal, the appellate
court would be slow to disturb the findings of the trial court which
had the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses. In an
appeal against the order of acquittal, there is no embargo for
reappreciating the evidence and to take a different view; but there
E must be strong circumstances to reverse the order of acquittal.
As observed by the High Court, the trial court gave importance
to insignificant aspects like “smearing of the thighs and legs of
the body with mud” and the conduct of the witnesses as to why
they have not reacted in a particular manner and while doing so,
the trial court failed to appreciate the substratum of the
F prosecution case. The High Court on being satisfied that the
conclusion reached by the trial court was erroneous reversed
the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court. [Paras 22, 25]
[278-G-H; 280-E-G]
Mohabbat v. State of M.P. (2009) 13 SCC 630 : [2009]
G 1 SCR 883 ; Rana Partap v. State of Haryana (1983) 3
SCC 327 ; Chanrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4
SCC 415 : [2007] 2 SCR 630 ; Kallu alias Masih and
Others v. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313 : [2006] 1
SCR 201 – relied on.
H
MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF 271
MAHARASHTRA
Case Law Reference A
[2009] 1 SCR 883 relied on Para 12
(1983) 3 SCC 327 relied on Para 16
[2007] 2 SCR 630 relied on Para 23
[2006] 1 SCR 201 relied on Para 24 B
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1479 of 2015.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2015 of the High Court C
of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 1994.
Y. P. Adhyaru, Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advs., Ms. Manisha T.
Karia, Ms. Soumya, Shashank Mongal, Karan Sharma, Ms. Mahika
Varma, Sang Rattan Negi, Pankaj Singhal, Advs. for the Appellants.
Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Adv. for the Respondent. D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. BANUMATHI, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment
dated 30.07.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in
Criminal Appeal No.174 of 1994 in and by which the High Court reversed E
the judgment of the acquittal of the appellants/accused Nos. 3, 5, 7 and
8 and convicted them under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 IPC
and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment.
2. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that PW-2-Anant
Budhaji Joshi is the brother of deceased Machindra Budhaji Joshi. Both F
Anant and Machindra were doing the work of electric fitting. PW-3-
Kesarinath Bhagat and PW-4-Vasudeo Gaikar were also doing the same
work. Appellant Motiram Padu Joshi (A3), Ratan Maruti Vaskar (A5),
Devidas Maruti Vaskar (A7), Ramnath @ Ram Padu Joshi (A8),
deceased-Machindra and prosecution witnesses are residents of village
Owa-peth, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. Appellants/accused were G
belonging to congress party and the deceased and the prosecution
witnesses were from Shiv-sena party. In the election of Zilla Parishad
in 1992, both parties became inimical to each other.
H
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.
A 3. On 26.04.1992, deceased Machindra had gone to village
Nandgaon for electric fitting work along with PWs 3 and 4 and they
returned at about 08.30 pm to the house of deceased. All three of them
had their dinner and were sitting on the cot in the courtyard. PW-2 was
thereafter taking his dinner inside the house. At about 09.30 pm,
appellants along with other accused being armed with deadly weapons
B
like swords, knife, sticks and motor-cycle chain came to the courtyard
of the house of deceased Machindra. Appellant Motiram (A3) was
carrying sword in his hand and assaulted the deceased on his head.
Appellant Ratan (A5) attacked the deceased with the sword on the legs
of the deceased. Appellant Ramnath (A8) also attacked the deceased
C with the sword on his head. Appellant Devidas (A7) attacked the
deceased with knife on his foot and legs. Other accused against whom
the appeal is abated assaulted the deceased with motor-cycle chain and
sticks. On seeing the accused armed with deadly weapons, PWs 3 and
4 got frightened and went inside the house and stood near the window of
the house and witnessed the occurrence. Due to the assault, the deceased
D
fell down from the cot having sustained grievous injuries and PW-2 took
the deceased in the truck of his brother PW-5-Eknath Joshi to Taloja
police station. Considering the serious conditions of the deceased, he
was sent to the Municipal Dispensary at Panvel along with police
constable Mhatre. PW-15-Atmaram, Head Constable recorded the
E statement of PW-2, based on which, FIR in Crime No.44/92 was
registered under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 IPC. On the same
night at about 11.30 pm, deceased Machindra succumbed to injuries and
the FIR was altered from Section 307 IPC to Section 302 IPC.
4. Sub-Inspector Mr. Laxman Shejal (PW-16) had taken up the
F investigation and he visited the spot and prepared the rough sketch
(Ex.A42). From the spot, he collected blood-stained quilt (Article No.3)
and also blood-stained soil and sample mud. The body was sent to
autopsy and PW-14-Dr. Ramrao Kendre conducted the post-mortem
and noticed as many as twenty-six injuries in the nature of incised wounds,
contusions on the head, legs, right arm and all over the body of the
G deceased. Dr. Ramrao Kendre opined that the cause of death was
“shock secondary to celebral contusion due to blood trauma over
occipital area”.
5. The accused were arrested on 27.04.1991. Based on the
disclosure statement of appellant Motiram, one sword (Article No.8)
H
MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF 273
MAHARASHTRA [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
was recovered on 09.05.1992. Swords (Article No.9) also came to be A
recovered at the instance of appellants Ratan and Ramnath on 11.05.1992
and 10.05.1992. The motor-cycle chain and sticks also came to be
recovered from the other accused. The Chemical Analysis Report
disclosed that ‘A’ group blood was found on Article No.8 (sword recovered
at the instance of appellant Motiram) and Article No.12 (Motor-cycle
B
chain). On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against
all the nine accused under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 IPC.
6. To prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution has
examined as many as sixteen witnesses and also produced material
objects and exhibited documents. The accused were questioned under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence and circumstances C
and the accused denied all of them and stated that they have been falsely
implicated. Upon consideration of evidence, the trial court pointed out
that PW-2 has a criminal record and that his evidence is improbable.
The trial court also held that the presence of PWs 3 and 4 was doubtful
and their evidence is untrustworthy and cannot be relied upon to convict D
the accused. The trial court further held that the prosecution has not
proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted
all the accused.
7. On appeal by the State, the High Court held that the evidence
of PWs 2 to 4 as to the overt act of the accused is consistent and E
corroborated by the medical evidence and recovery of weapons. The
High Court held that the trial court erred in disbelieving the evidence of
eye witnesses and the reasonings of the trial court suffers from perversity.
Observing that prompt registration of FIR lends credenceto the
prosecution case which is also strengthened by medical evidence and
recovery of weapons, the High Court reversed the judgment of the trial F
court and convicted the appellants as aforesaid in para (1). The High
Court maintained the acquittal of accused Baburao (A2).
8. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court,
accused Ragho Dharma Koli (A1), Rohidas Balram Joshi (A4), Satyawan
Balu Waskar (A6) and Dnyandeo Sakharam Joshi (A9) died and the G
appeal against them stood abated.
9. We have heard Mr. Y.P. Adhyaru and Mr. Sidharth Luthra
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of appellants and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of State of Maharashtra. We have perused
H
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.
A the impugned judgment and carefully considered the rival contentions
and the evidence and materials placed on record.
10. There are three eye witnesses namely Anant, brother of
deceased (PW-2), Kesarinath (PW-3) and Vasudeo (PW-4). PWs 2 to
4 have consistently stated that on the date of incident, after having dinner,
B deceased was lying on the cot in the courtyard and PWs 3 and 4 were
sitting near him. PW-2 went inside and was taking meal. At about
09.30 pm, the appellants and other accused armed with weapons came
there shouting and running. On seeing the accused armed with deadly
weapons, PWs 3 and 4 got frightened and went inside the house.
Appellant Motiram attacked the deceased with sword on his head,
C appellant Ratan attacked the deceased with sword on his legs, appellant
Ramnath attacked the deceased with sword on his head and appellant
Devidas attacked the deceased with knife on his foot and legs. On
hearing the alarm raised by deceased Machindra, PW-2 came out and
raised shouts and on seeing the neighbours, the accused ran away from
D the spot. PWs 2 to 4 have consistently spoken about the overt act of the
appellants as mentioned above.
11. Evidence of PW-2 and his credibility is attacked by the
appellants contending that:- (i) PW-2 though present in the house did not
go to the rescue of his brother Machindra and remained mute spectator;
E and (ii) PW-2 has a criminal record. Just prior to the incident, PW-2
went inside the house and was taking meals. On hearing the alarm raised
by his brother Machindra, PW-2 came outside. As the accused were
many in numbers and armed with deadly weapons like swords, knife,
motor-cycle chain and sticks etc., PW-2 being unarmed would have
naturally become frightened and may not have dared to interfere.
F Evidence of a witness is not to be disbelieved simply because he has not
reacted in a particular manner.
12. Likewise, the relationship of PW-2 with the deceased cannot
be the reason for doubting the testimony of PW-2. It is fairly well-settled
that relationship is not a ground affecting the credibility of a witness. In
G Mohabbat v. State of M.P., (2009) 13 SCC 630,this Court held as under:-
“11. Learned counsel for the respondent State on the other hand
supported the judgment of the High Court.
“12. Merely because the eyewitnesses are family members their
evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is allegation of
H
MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF 275
MAHARASHTRA [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere statement A
that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely
implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence
which is otherwise cogent and credible. We shall also deal with
the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for
furthering the prosecution version.
B
13. ‘5. … Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a
witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal
actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person.
Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In
such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse
evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. C
………
To the same effect are the decisions in State of Punjab v. Jagir
Singh (1974) 3 SCC 277, Lehna v. State of Haryana (2002) 3
SCC 76 (SCC pp. 81-82, paras 5-9) and Gangadhar Behera v. D
State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381.”
The above position was also highlighted in Babulal Bhagwan
Khandare v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 10 SCC 404, Salim
Sahab v. State of M.P. (2007) 1 SCC 699 and Sonelal v. State of
M.P. (2008) 14 SCC 692 (SCC pp. 695-97, paras 12-13).” E
As held in various decisions, judicial approach has to be cautious
in dealing with such evidence. It is unreasonable to contend that evidence
given by related witness should be discarded only on the ground that
such witness is related.
13. Evidence of PWs 3 and 4 is sought to be assailed on the F
ground that their names were not mentioned in the First Information
Report (FIR) and that they are interested witnesses. Of course, names
of PWs 3 and 4 were not mentioned in the FIR. Deceased Machindra
was critically injured and when he was taken to the police station, on
seeing his serious condition, deceased was sent to the hospital along
G
with police constable Mhatre. PW-2 remained in the police station to
lodge the complaint and his statement was recorded. His brother having
been critically injured, PW-2 must have been in a disturbed mind and
must have been in a hurry to rush to the hospital to save his brother.
Non-mention of the names of eye witnesses (PWs 3 and 4) in the FIR
should be examined in the situation in which PW-2 was placed. H
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.
A 14. Furthermore, as pointed out by the High Court, FIR is not an
encyclopedia which should contain all the details of the incident. FIR is
not an encyclopedia which is expected to contain all the details of the
prosecution case. It may be sufficient if the broad facts of the prosecution
case about the occurrence appear. Omission as to the names of the
assailants or the witnesses may not all the times be fatal to the prosecution,
B
if the FIR is lodged without delay. Unless there are indications of
fabrication, the court cannot reject the prosecution case as given in the
FIR merely because of omission. In the present case, FIR was registered
without delay and prompt registration of FIR itself lends assurance to
the prosecution case. The object of the FIR is to set the law in motion.
C Omission to give the names of assailants or the names of witnesses in
the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case. The High Court was right in
observing that non-mention of the names of eye witnesses in the FIR
can hardly be fatal to the prosecution case.
15. Evidence of PWs 3 and 4 is assailed on the ground that PWs
D 3 and 4 have not gone to the rescue of the deceased and it is quite
unbelievable that on seeing the accused who were armed with weapons,
both of them went inside the house. It is further submitted that the trial
court righty held that their evidence is not trustworthy and the High
Court was not right in intervening such finding and basing the conviction
on the evidence of PWs 3 and 4. In their evidence, PWs 3 and 4 have
E stated that on seeing number of accused armed with deadly weapons
got frightened and went inside the house and stood near the window and
saw the occurrence. Their evidence cannot be doubted on the ground
that they did not intervene in the attack nor made attempts to save the
deceased. On witnessing a crime, each person reacts in his own way
F and their evidence cannot be doubted on the ground that the witness has
not acted in a particular manner. The evidence of PWs 3 and 4 cannot
be doubted merely because they have not acted in a particular manner.
16. We may usefully refer to the case in Rana Partap v. State of
Haryana, (1983) 3 SCC 327 as under:-
G “6. Yet another reason given by the learned Sessions Judge to
doubt the presence of the witnesses was that their conduct in not
going to the rescue of the deceased when he was in the clutches
of the assailants was unnatural. We must say that the comment is
most unreal. Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his
H
MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF 277
MAHARASHTRA [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted A
to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start
shouting for help. Others run away to keep themselves as far
removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush to the rescue
of the victim, even going to the extent of counter-attacking the
assailants. Every one reacts in his own special way. There is no
B
set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness
on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to
appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative
way.”
17. While appreciating the evidence of witness, approach must
be whether the evidence of witness read as a whole appears to have a C
ring of truth and consistent with the prosecution case or to find out
whether it is against the general tenor of the case. Their evidence cannot
be doubted merely because they belong to opposite faction. All that is
required is that their evidence is to be scrutinized with care and caution.
On testing the evidence of PWs 2 to 4, the High Court found that their D
evidence is consistent and credit worthy. We find no reason to take a
different view.
18. The evidence of PWs 2 to 4 is corroborated by medical
evidence. Further, PW-14 opined that nineteen to fourteen injuries could
have been caused by swords (Articles 8 and 9). Oral evidence of PWs E
2 to 4 is thus corroborated by the medical evidence. PW-14-Dr. Ramrao
who conducted the post-mortem has noticed that “half of the stomach
with rice is not digested”. PW-14 opined that the deceased died within
two hours of his last meal which again is consistent with the evidence of
PWs 2 to 4. Medical evidence of PW-14 lends assurance to the evidence
of PWs 2 to 4. F
19. Prosecution case is further corroborated by recovery of
weapons from the accused. Based on the disclosure statement of
appellant Motiram, one sword (Article No.8) was recovered and another
sword at the instance of appellant Ratan (Article No.9) was recovered
and another sword was also recovered on the disclosure statement of G
appellant Ramnath. Chemical Analysis Report (Ex. A32) showed that
the blood-stained found on the quilt seized from the scene of occurrence
was that of ‘A’ group. ‘A’ group blood was also detected on swords
which were recovered, based on the disclosure statement of appellants
H
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.
A Motiram (Article No.8) and Ratan (Article No.9). The presence of ‘A’
group blood (Blood Group of deceased) on the weapons recovered is
yet another piece of evidence corroborating the evidence of PWs 2 to 4
and strengthening the prosecution case.
20. PW-14-Dr. Ramrao noticed that the thighs and legs of the
B deceased was smeared with mud. Learned senior counsel for the
appellants submitted that in view of the presence of mud on the body of
the deceased, serious doubts arise as to the time and place of occurrence
and that there is no possibility of the occurrence having taken place in
the courtyard of the house of deceased Machindra. This submission
does not merit acceptance for more than one reason. Firstly, as pointed
C out earlier, PW-16-Laxman Shejal, Investigating Officer had recovered
blood-stained quilt (Article No.3) from the scene of occurrence i.e.
courtyard of house of the deceased and also blood-stained mud and
sample mud. Chemical Analysis Report (Ex. A32) showed presence of
‘A’ group blood in the quilt. While narrating the occurrence, eye witnesses
D have stated that after the attack, the deceased had fallen down from the
cot; in that course, thighs and legs of the deceased might have been
smeared with mud. The presence of mud on the thighs and legs therefore
does not raise doubts about the prosecution case. This aspect of
submission advanced by the appellants has been elaborately considered
by the High Court in para (42) of its judgment. As rightly observed by
E the High Court, this is too insignificant a fact to give importance so as to
disbelieve and discard the entire prosecution case as such.
21. Learned senior counsel for the appellants then contended that
only when there are compelling and substantial reasons, the High Court
can interfere with the order of acquittal and in the present case, there
F were no such compelling circumstances or glaring mistakes in the
judgment of the trial court to reverse the order of acquittal.
22. It is fairly well-settled that in an appeal against the order of
acquittal, the appellate court would be slow to disturb the findings of the
trial court which had the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses.
G In an appeal against the order of acquittal, there is no embargo for
reappreciating the evidence and to take a different view; but there must
be strong circumstances to reverse the order of acquittal. In the appeal
against order of acquittal, the paramount consideration of the appellate
court should be to avoid miscarriage of justice.
H
MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF 279
MAHARASHTRA [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
23. While considering the scope of power of the appellate court in A
an appeal against the order of acquittal, after referring to various
judgments, in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415,
this Court summarised the principle as under:-
“42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the
following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court B
while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate
and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is
founded.
C
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation,
restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate
court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion,
both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling D
reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong
circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc.
are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court
in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the
nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of
E
an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the
power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case
of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. F
Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under
the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every
person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty
by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured
his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced,
reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. G
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of
the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”
H
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.
A 24. In Kallu alias Masih and others v. State of M.P., (2006) 10
SCC 313,this Court held as under:-
“8. While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the
appellate court is no less than the power exercised while hearing
appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power
B exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant
difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with,
by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is
based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible.
It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a
different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in
C mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt.
Further, if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for
differing with the decision of the trial court.”
25. In the present case, as held by the High Court, the trial court
D has not properly appreciated the evidence and its findings are perverse.
When the approach of the trial court is perverse, in an appeal against the
order of acquittal, a duty is cast upon the High Court to reappreciate the
evidence. The deceased had sustained as many as twenty-six injuries.
PWs 1 to 3 have consistently spoken about the incident and that the
E appellants were armed with deadly weapons and the overt acts of the
appellants which is corroborated by the medical evidence and also by
recovery of weapons from the appellants/accused. As observed by the
High Court, the trial court gave importance to insignificant aspects like
“smearing of the thighs and legs of the body with mud” and the
conduct of the witnesses as to why they have not reacted in a particular
F manner and while doing so, the trial court failed to appreciate the
substratum of the prosecution case. The High Court on being satisfied
that the conclusion reached by the trial court was erroneous reversed
the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court. We do not find any
good ground to interfere with the judgment of the High Court.
G 26. In the result, the conviction of the appellants under Section
302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC is confirmed and the sentence of life
imprisonment imposed upon each of them is confirmed and this appeal is
dismissed.
H Devika Gujral Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search