STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusCHHAAKKI LAL AND ANOTHER

184                      [2018]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    12 S.C.R. 184              [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A                      STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                          v.
                      CHHAAKKI LAL AND ANOTHER
                      (Criminal Appeal Nos.21-22 of 2011)
B                            SEPTEMBER 26, 2018
               [R. BANUMATHI AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
             Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Appeal against acquittal – Case
      of the prosecution that accused no.1 and 2 shot dead PW-1’s
      daughter and three other relatives while they were going along
C
      with PW-1 towards the fields to cut crop – Trial court held the accused
      persons guilty u/s.302 – High Court acquitted the accused persons
      – On appeal, held: It is the case where four people were murdered
      in broad day light – One of the deceased, PW-1’s grandson was a
      child of three years – High Court did not appreciate the evidence
D     of PW-1, the sole eye witness in proper perspective and erred in
      disbelieving her version on the contradictions which are not material
      – Version of PW-1 is corroborated by the medical evidence and the
      evidence of ballistic expert – In an appeal against acquittal, the
      appellate court would not ordinarily interfere with the order of
      acquittal, but where the approach of the High Court suffers from
E
      serious infirmity, Supreme court can reappreciate the evidence and
      reasonings upon which the order of acquittal is based – Judgment
      of the High Court suffers from serious infirmity – Judgment of the
      trial court restored – Trial court holding the case to be one of the
      ‘rarest of rare cases’ awarded death penalty to the accused persons
F     – However, occurrence was of the year 2006 and moreover, the
      appeal against accused no.2 has abated due to his death –
      Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the passage
      of time, award of death penalty is not warranted and imposition of
      life sentence upon accused no.1 would meet the ends of justice –
      Evidence Act – ss.27 and 134.
G
            FIR – Contents of – Held: FIR is not an encyclopaedia which
      is expected to contain all the minute details of the prosecution case
      – It may be sufficient if the broad effects of the prosecution case
      are stated in the FIR.
H
                                    184
      STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. CHHAAKKI LAL                          185


      Allowing the appeals, the Court                                  A
       HELD: 1.1 It is the case where four people were murdered
in the broad day light. One of the deceased was a child of three
years of age. The prosecution case revolves around the solitary
testimony of eye-witness PW-1 which was accepted by the trial
court as trustworthy. While reversing the verdict of conviction,       B
the High Court held that the evidence of PW-1 is fraught with
inconsistencies and hence, her evidence is not reliable. Of course,
there is a slight improvement in the version of PW-1 before the
court but the circumstance under which Complaint (Ex.-P1) was
recorded has to be seen. PW-1 had lost her four kith and kin. At
the time when Complaint was recorded, PW-1 must have been              C
grief-stricken and under mental trauma and she might have stated
that she heard four-five gun shots and then saw the dead bodies
of ‘GB’ (PW-1’s daughter) and ‘GS’ (son of jeth of PW-1’s
daughter) and then the accused came near ‘P’ (PW-1’s
daughter-in-law) and child ‘R’ (PW-1’s grandson) and fired at them.    D
[Paras 10, 12 and 14] 192-A, F-G; 193-C-D]
       1.2 In his evidence, PW-3 stated that the dead bodies of
‘GB’ and ‘GS’ were found close to each other and that dead bodies
of ‘P’ and ‘R’ were at a distance of 25-30 feet away from the dead
bodies of ‘GB’ and ‘GS’. In his statement, Investigating Officer       E
(PW-13) stated that dead body of ‘P’ was at a distance of about
fifty yards from the dead bodies of ‘GB’ and ‘GS’ and that was
mentioned by him in the Site Plan (Ex.-P24). After referring to
the Site Plan, the evidence of PW-3 and PW-13-IO, the trial court
pointed out that the place where ‘P’ and ‘R’ were shot and dead
bodies of ‘GB’ and ‘GS’ were found, were at a short distance of        F
about fifty yards. The trial court observed that since the distance
was not far away, case of the prosecution that ‘GS’, ‘GB’, ‘P’ and
‘R’ were all shot by the accused in the course of the same
transaction is established by the oral evidence of PW-1 and also
by the Site Plan. After referring to the evidence of PW-13-            G
Investigating Officer and Site Plan, when the trial court had
recorded that the firing of all the four deceased were in the course
of the same transaction, the High Court ought not to have doubted
the version of PW-1 on the slight improvement made in her
evidence. [Paras 17, 18] [194-D-G]
                                                                       H
186            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A            1.3 FIR is not an encyclopaedia which is expected to contain
      all the minute details of the prosecution case, it may be sufficient
      if the broad effects of the prosecution case are stated in the FIR.
      In this case, firing by accused no.1 at child ‘R’ was stated in the
      FIR and the omission of minute detail that accused no.1 jumped
      on the abdomen of child ‘R’ cannot be regarded as fatal to the
B
      prosecution case. The effect of the occurrence on the mind of an
      old woman like PW-1 cannot be measured in yardstick. Being
      grief-stricken because of the death of her four kith and kin, it
      may not have occurred to her to narrate all the minute details of
      the occurrence. The non-mention of accused no.1 throwing the
C     child ‘R’ on the ground and jumping on his abdomen due to which
      the intestine came out cannot be regarded as fatal to the
      prosecution case. Further, when there is proper explanation for
      the delay, the prosecution case cannot be doubted on the ground
      that there was delay in registration of FIR. In this case, the delay
      in FIR was properly explained and the same is not fatal to the
D
      prosecution case. [Para 19, 25] [195-C-E; 198-B-C]
            1.4 PW-1 was a rustic villager and also aged. After seeing
      her own daughter and daughter in law and grandson being put to
      death, she must have been under tremendous shock. She was
      deposing in the court after some time. Naturally, there are bound
E     to be variations from her earlier version. The trial court which
      had the opportunity to observe the demeanour of the witnesses
      found that the evidence of PWs is credible and trustworthy. While
      so, the High Court ought not to have recorded a finding raising
      doubts about the credibility of PW-1. Unless the appreciation of
F     evidence by the trial court was vitiated by serious error, the
      findings recorded by the trial court ought not to have been
      interfered by the High Court. The High Court erred in doubting
      the testimony of PW-1. It would be unreasonable to contend that
      merely because PW-1 is related to the deceased and that there
      were contradictions in her evidence, her evidence has to be
G     discarded. Discrepancies which do not shake the credibility of
      the witness and the basic version of the prosecution case are to
      be discarded. If the evidence of the witness as a whole contains
      the ring of truth, the evidence cannot be doubted.
      [Paras 20-22] [195-F-G; 196-A-C]
H
      STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. CHHAAKKI LAL                            187


      Prithu alias Prithi Chand and Another v. State of                  A
      Himachal Pradesh (2009) 11 SCC 588 : [2009] 2 SCR
      765 - relied on.
      State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony (1985) 1 SCC 505 –
      referred to.
      1.5 So far as the place of occurrence is concerned, the            B
evidence of PW-1 is amply corroborated by other evidence. It is
not the number; but the quality of the evidence that matters. In
terms of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, “no particular number
of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact”.
[Para 23] 196-G; 197-A]                                                  C
      Prithipal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and
      Another (2012) 1 SCC 10 – relied on.
      Sudip Kumar Sen alias Biltu v. State of West Bengal
      and Others (2016) 3 SCC 26 – referred to.
                                                                         D
      1.6 The opinion of the Ballistic expert that the fired kartoos
was fired by 0.315 bore katta/desi pistol (Ex.-A4) recovered from
accused no.1 and the opinion that live kartoos (Ex.-EB1 and EB2)
were fired from 12 bore gun (Ex.-A3) recovered from accused
no.2 amply proves the involvement of the complicity of the
accused in the occurrence thereby corroborating the evidence             E
of PW-1. [Para 27] [199-G-H]
       2. In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court would
not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal. But where
the approach of the High Court suffers from serious infirmity,
this court can reappreciate the evidence and reasonings upon             F
which the order of acquittal is based. A miscarriage of justice
which may arise from the acquittal of the guilty is no less than
from the conviction of the innocent. The High Court erred in
doubting the version of PW-1, the sole eye witness whose
evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence and the
                                                                         G
evidence of ballistic expert. The High Court did not appreciate
the evidence of PW-1 in proper perspective and erred in
disbelieving her version on the contradictions which are not
material. Where the evidence has not been properly analysed or
the High court has acted on surmises and findings of the impugned
                                                                         H
188            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A     judgment is unreasonable, it is the duty of the appellate court to
      set right the wrong. The order of acquittal by the High court
      cannot be sustained and the judgment of the trial court is to be
      restored. [Paras 35, 36] [202-B-D; E, F]
             3. After convicting the accused persons under Section 302
B     IPC, the trial court held that the case would be one of the ‘rarest
      of rare cases’ and awarded death penalty. The occurrence was of
      the year 2006 and moreover, the appeal against accused no.2 has
      been abated due to his passing away. Therefore, considering the
      facts and circumstances of the case and the passage of time,
      awarding of death penalty is not warranted and imposing sentence
C     of life imprisonment upon the respondent/accused no.1 would
      meet the ends of justice. The accused no.1 is sentenced to
      undergo imprisonment for life. [Paras 37, 38] [202-F-G; 203-B]
            Nankaunoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016) 3 SCC
            317 : [2016] 4 SCR 627 ; V.K. Mishra and Another v.
D           State of Uttarakhand and Another (2015) 9 SCC 588 :
            [2015] 8 SCR 1 – relied on.
                             Case Law Reference
      [2009] 2 SCR 765               relied on              Para 22
E     (1985) 1 SCC 505               referred to            Para 22
      (2012) 1 SCC 10                relied on              Para 23
      (2016) 3 SCC 26                referred to            Para 23
      [2016] 4 SCR 627               relied on              Para 33
F     [2015] 8 SCR 1                 relied on              Para 34
            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
      Nos. 21-22 of 2011.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 13.08.2008 of the High Court
G     of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal
      No. 254 of 2008 and Criminal Death Reference No. 2 of 2008
                                     WITH
            Criminal Appeal Nos.23-24 of 2011.

H
      STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. CHHAAKKI LAL                                  189


      Ms. Bansuri Swarj, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, B. N. Dubey,                A
Ms. Devika Gulati, Ms. Vaishali Verma Rahul Chitnis, Aaditya A. Pande,
Chander Shekhar Ashri, P. K. Sharma, Uday Prakash Yadav, Sujit
Kumar Jha, Ramjee Pandey, Pradeep Kumar Dubey, Advs. for the
appearing parties.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                               B
       R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the judgment
of the High court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Death Reference
No.2 of 2008 in and by which the High Court has allowed the appeal
filed by the respondents-accused thereby acquitting the respondents-
accused under Section 302 IPC and setting aside the death penalty              C
awarded to the respondents/accused and his son accused Akhilesh by
the trial court.
      2. During the pendency of these appeals, respondent No.2-
Akhilesh had died and by the order dated 28.02.2017, the appeal against
respondent No.2 was dismissed as abated.                                       D
       3. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that on 20.02.2006 at
about 12.00-12.30 p.m., Kesar Bai (PW-1), her daughter-in-law deceased
Phoolwati and grandson Rinku aged three years were going towards the
field to cut the mustard crop. Deceased Ganeshi Bai who was the
daughter of Kesar Bai (PW-1) and deceased Ganga Singh who was the              E
son of the jeth of Ganeshi Bai were little ahead to them. As soon as
Kesar Bai reached near Madhawala Danda on the public way, she heard
the sound of four to five gun-shots fired and saw the accused firing at
Ganga Singh and Ganeshi Bai. Thereafter, accused Chhaakki Lal and
his son Akhilesh carrying the guns came towards them from the front
side. Chhaakki Lal told Kesar Bai (PW-1) that they have already killed         F
her daughter, Ganeshi Bai and Ganga Singh and now the turn is hers.
Chhaakki Lal-accused No.1 then fired at Phoolwati in her abdomen, the
second fire was fired by Akhilesh-accused No.2 at Rinku. Then accused-
Chhaakki Lal jumped on the child Rinku due to which the intestines of
Rinku tossed out because of the impact and as a result, he died on the         G
spot. Kesar Bai (PW-1) challenged the accused persons and said ‘what
are you waiting for, kill me now’. Chhaakki Lal is said to have replied
that he would not kill her as she will die automatically after looking at
these incidents. Complaint - Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P-1) was recorded on
20.02.2006 and after initial investigation, FIR was registered under Section
                                                                               H
190            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A     302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 25, 27, 29 and 30 of the
      Arms Act against both the accused persons (Ex. P-25-26).
             4. Dr. S.K. Singh Niranjan (PW-6) conducted post-mortem on
      the dead bodies of all the four deceased namely Phoolwati, Rinku Singh,
      Ganeshi Bai and Ganga Singh and noted the injuries and issued
B     post-mortem certificates. Accused Chhaakki Lal and Akhilesh were
      arrested on 26.02.2006. Based on the disclosure statement of Chhaakki
      Lal-accused No.1, a katta had been seized vide seizure memo
      Ex. P-20. Based on the disclosure statement of Akhilesh-accused No.2,
      a 12 bore gun along with two live cartridges of 12 bore was seized from
      Akhilesh. Also a gun licence of accused-Chhaakki Lal had been seized
C     from Akhilesh vide seizure memo Ex. P-21. According to the FSL reports
      (Exts. P-31, P-32 and P-33), the fired kartoos Ex.EC-1 to Ex.EC-4 had
      been fired by pistol Ex. A-4, the two live kartoos Ex. LR-1 and LR-2
      could be fired by 12 bore gun/bandook (Ex. A-3), Exs. EB-1 and EB-2
      was fired by rifle weapon. Ex.-EB-3 can be part of Ex.-EB-2.
D            5. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined
      PW-1 to PW-13 and exhibited number of documents. The accused were
      questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence
      and circumstances and the accused denied all of them. Accused in their
      defence stated that deceased Ganga Singh was a person of criminal
E     character who was also in collusion with dacoits and engaged in theft
      and snatching. The accused persons have stated that due to previous
      enmity, they have been falsely implicated. Upon consideration of
      evidence of Kesar Bai (PW-1) and other evidence adduced by the
      prosecution, the trial court held accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty under Section
      302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The trial court held that the case
F     would come under the category of ‘rarest of rare cases’ and awarded
      death penalty to both the accused persons apart from imposing a fine of
      Rs.5,000/- each. In appeal, the High court allowed the appeal preferred
      by the accused. The High Court found that the evidence of sole eye
      witness Kesar Bai (PW-1) is not reliable and that the same is full of
G     contradictions and omissions. The High Court held that Kesar Bai (PW-
      1) is not a reliable witness and on those findings reversed the verdict of
      conviction and acquitted the accused persons.
            6. Heard learned counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh and
      learned counsel for the respondents/accused. Learned counsel for the
H
      STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. CHHAAKKI LAL                                 191
                  [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

State of Madhya Pradesh submitted that the evidence of Kesar Bai              A
(PW-1) was credible and acceptable and the same was supported by
other evidence and circumstances and the High Court erred in disbelieving
the evidence of Kesar Bai (PW-1). It was further contended that the
delay in sending the weapons for examination to Forensic Science
Laboratory on 19.04.2006 which were recovered on 01.03.2006 was a
                                                                              B
mistake/omission on the part of B.L. Dhanele - Investigating Officer
(PW-13) and the benefit of such omission cannot be given to the accused.
It was urged that the High court was wrong in believing the story of the
defence to the effect that all the four deceased were killed by the dacoits
as the deceased Ganga Singh had illegal relations with the dacoits and
the High court has failed to see that the story of the defence was without    C
any basis.
       7. Contention of the respondent/accused is that Kesar Bai
(PW-1) is not an honest and trustworthy witness because there are lot
of improvements on important aspects in her court depositions on vital
aspects. Assailing the evidence of Kesar Bai (PW-1), the learned counsel      D
inter alia made the following submissions:-
  ·    In her court deposition, Kesar Bai (PW-1) claimed that she had
      witnessed the murder of Ganga Singh and Ganeshi Bai whereas
      in the police complaint, she stated that she heard four to five gun
      shots and thereafter when she reached there, she saw the                E
      respondents/accused Chhaakki Lal and Akhilesh proceeding
      towards them;
  ·   Improved version of Kesar Bai (PW-1) as to the overt act
      attributed to Chhaakki Lal that he threw Rinku on the ground and
      jumped upon his abdomen region as a result of which his                 F
      intestines came out did not find place in the FIR.
      8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents-accused
submitted that the evidence of sole witness Kesar Bai (PW-1) could not
have formed the basis for conviction and the High Court has rightly
discarded the evidence of Kesar Bai (PW-1) and has rightly set aside          G
the conviction and acquitted the accused.
       9. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused
the impugned judgment, evidence and materials placed on record. The
point falling for consideration is whether the High court was right in
                                                                              H
192            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A     reversing the verdict of conviction of the respondents-accused and
      acquitting them from the charges under Section 302 IPC.
             10. It is the case where four people were murdered in the broad
      day light. One of the deceased - Rinku was a child of three years of age.
      Case of the prosecution is based upon the sole testimony of Kesar Bai
B     (PW-1). In her evidence, Kesar Bai (PW-1) has stated that Ganga Singh
      and Ganeshi Bai had gone ahead for cutting the neem tree and that she
      (PW-1), her daughter-in-law Phoolwati and grandson Rinku were
      following them. Kesar Bai (PW-1) stated that when they reached at
      Madhawala Danda, Ganga Singh was at a distance of 10-15 feet and
      that she saw accused Chhaakki Lal and Akhilesh firing gun-shot at Ganga
C     Singh and thereafter firing gun-shot at Ganeshi Bai. Then accused-
      Chhaakki Lal and Akhilesh came towards Phoolwati and Chhaakki Lal
      fired the bullet in the abdomen of Phoolwati. Akhilesh also fired at
      Phoolwati. Akhilesh fired at Rinku and Chhaakki Lal had thrown Rinku
      on the ground. Chhaakki Lal also fired at Rinku. Chhaakki Lal climbed
D     over Rinku and jumped, due to which, his intestines came out. When
      Kesar Bai (PW-1) told them to kill her also by firing, Chhaakki Lal replied
      that they would not kill her and that she had to see all these things and
      then she would die automatically.
             11. Thakurdas (PW-2) who is Village Chowkidar stated that he
E     had heard about the incident from Kesar Bai (PW-1) and gone to the
      place of the incident and saw the dead bodies of Ganga Singh, Ganeshi
      Bai, Phoolwati and Rinku. Thakurdas (PW-2) stated that when he
      reached the village, Kesar Bai (PW-1) was weeping and she told him
      that Chhaakki Lal and his son Akhilesh had committed all the four murders
      when they were going towards the field.
F
             12. The prosecution case revolves around the solitary testimony
      of eye-witness Kesar Bai (PW-1) which was accepted by the trial court
      as trustworthy. While reversing the verdict of conviction, the High Court
      held that the evidence of Kesar Bai (PW-1) is fraught with inconsistencies
      and hence, her evidence is not reliable. The High court pointed out that
G     the evidence of Kesar Bai (PW-1) is exaggerated and that accused-
      Chhaakki Lal fired at Rinku is totally missing in her statement (Ex.-P1).
      The High Court also pointed out further inconsistencies.
            13. In her evidence before the court, Kesar Bai (PW-1) stated
      that when she and her daughter-in-law Phoolwati and grandson Rinku
H
      STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. CHHAAKKI LAL                                 193
                  [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

reached near Madhawala Danda, other deceased persons namely                   A
Ganeshi Bai and Ganga Singh were only ten paces away from them and
that she saw both the accused firing at Ganga Singh and Ganeshi Bai
and thereafter the accused came towards her. In Dehati Nalishi-complaint
(Ex.-P1), Kesar Bai (PW-1) stated that she heard four-five gun shots
and then saw the accused coming towards her telling that they have
                                                                              B
killed Ganeshi Bai and Ganga Singh and then fired at Phoolwati and
child Rinku. The High Court held that in the version of Kesar Bai
(PW-1) before the court, there is a material improvement and that the
evidence of Kesar Bai (PW-1) is not reliable.
       14. Of course, there is a slight improvement in the version of         C
Kesar Bai (PW-1) before the court but the circumstance under which
Dehati Nalishi-complaint (Ex.-P1) was recorded has to be seen. Kesar
Bai (PW-1) has lost her four kith and kin. At the time when Dehati
Nalishi-complaint (Ex.-P1) was recorded, Kesar Bai (PW-1) must have
been grief-stricken and under mental trauma and she might have stated
that she heard four-five gun shots and then saw the dead bodies of            D
Ganga Singh and Ganeshi Bai and then the accused came near Phoolwati
and child Rinku and fired at them.
       15. Learned counsel for the respondent/accused submitted that in
her cross-examination, Kesar Bai (PW-1) stated about one assailant
Kailash and also named in Dehati Nalishi and the said Kailash was             E
detained by the police for one or two days after the incident but later let
off by the police because of the pressure. It was submitted that mention
of another assailant Kailash by Kesar Bai (PW-1) raises serious doubts
about the prosecution case. Ex.-P1-Dehati Nalishi was an earliest one
lodged on the date of incident on 20.02.2006 at 05.15 pm. Name of             F
Kailash is not mentioned in Ex.-P1-Dehati Nalishi. FIR (Ex.-P25-26)
also does not contain the name of alleged assailant Kailash. Since name
of Kailash was not mentioned either in the Dehati Nalishi or FIR, the
answers elicited from Kesar Bai (PW-1) in the cross-examination
regarding Kailash does not affect her credibility. It is also pertinent to
point out that in her cross-examination, though Kesar Bai (PW-1) had          G
stated that Kailash was taken to police custody after two to three days
of complaint, Kesar Bai (PW-1) stated that she cannot say that whether
police had taken Kailash to custody in connection with her case or other
case.
                                                                              H
194            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A            16. Though much arguments are advanced regarding the alleged
      involvement of Kailash and that he was taken to custody, the entire
      argument advanced qua one Kailash is based upon certain answers
      elicited from Kesar Bai (PW-1). The Investigating Officer has also
      denied that he has brought Kailash and one Ardaman and kept them in
      custody for 4-5 days. He has also denied that based on the statement of
B
      Kesar Bai (PW-1), he kept their guns. Investigating Officer has denied
      that he released both Kailash and Ardaman due to some pressure and
      falsely involved respondents/accused. Investigating Officer has also
      denied that Kesar Bai (PW-1) had told him that Kailash and Ardaman
      had done the incident through dacoits. Investigating Officer has also
C     denied that Kesar Bai (PW-1) had named Kailash and Ardaman in her
      statement and the same was not written by him. In the light of categorical
      denial by the investigation, there is no merit in the contention of the
      respondent/accused as to the alleged involvement of Kailash.
              17. In his evidence, Ram Naresh (PW-3) stated that the dead
D     bodies of Ganeshi Bai and Ganga Singh were found close to each other
      and that dead bodies of Phoolwati and Rinku were at a distance of
      25-30 feet away from the dead bodies of Ganeshi Bai and Ganga Singh.
      In his statement, B.L. Dhanele - Investigating Officer (PW-13) has stated
      that dead body of Phoolwati was at a distance of about fifty yards from
      the dead bodies of Ganeshi Bai and Ganga Singh and that has been
E     mentioned by him in the Site Plan (Ex.-P24).
             18. After referring to the Site Plan (Ex.-P24) and the evidence of
      Ram Naresh (PW-3) and PW-13-IO, the trial court pointed out that the
      place where Phoolwati and Rinku were shot and dead bodies of Ganeshi
      Bai and Ganga Singh were found, were at a short distance of about fifty
F     yards. The trial court observed that since the distance was not far
      away, case of the prosecution that Ganga Singh, Ganeshi Bai, Phoolwati
      and Rinku were all shot by the accused in the course of the same
      transaction is established by the oral evidence of Kesar Bai (PW-1) and
      also by the Site Plan (Ex.-P24). After referring to the evidence of
G     PW-13-Investigating Officer and Site Plan (Ex.-P24), when the trial
      court has recorded that the firing of all the four deceased were in the
      course of the same transaction, the High Court ought not to have doubted
      the version of Kesar Bai (PW-1) on the slight improvement made in her
      evidence. For the sake of arguments, even assuming that PW-1 could

H
      STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. CHHAAKKI LAL                                195
                  [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

not have seen the firing at Ganeshi Bai and Ganga Singh, her evidence is     A
to be accepted to the extent of the occurrence of firing at deceased
Phoolwati and child Rinku. In her statement Kesar Bai (PW-1) has
stated that after gun shot fired at deceased Rinku, accused-Chhaakki
Lal threw the child Rinku on the ground and also jumped on his abdomen,
as a result of which intestines came out. The learned counsel for the
                                                                             B
respondents-accused submitted that Chhaakki Lal jumping on the
abdomen of the child Rinku was not mentioned in Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P.1)
and FIR and this material omission suggests that Kesar Bai (PW-1)
exaggerated her version about throwing of child Rinku on the floor and
jumping on his abdominal region.
       19. FIR is not an encyclopaedia which is expected to contain all      C
the minute details of the prosecution case, it may be sufficient if the
broad effects of the prosecution case are stated in the FIR. In this case,
firing by accused-Chhaakki Lal at child Rinku was stated in the FIR and
the omission of minute detail that Chhaakki Lal jumped on the abdomen
of child Rinku cannot be regarded as fatal to the prosecution case. As       D
discussed earlier, the effect of the occurrence on the mind of an old
woman like Kesar Bai (PW-1) cannot be measured in yardstick. Being
grief-stricken because of the death of her four kith and kin, it may not
have occurred to Kesar Bai (PW-1) to narrate all the minute details of
the occurrence. The non-mention of accused-Chhaakki Lal throwing
the child Rinku on the ground and jumping on his abdomen due to which        E
the intestine came out cannot be regarded as fatal to the prosecution
case.
       20. The High Court acquitted the accused merely on the ground
that the evidence of Kesar Bai (PW-1) is fraught with contradictions.
Kesar Bai (PW-1) was a rustic villager and also aged. After seeing her       F
own daughter and daughter in law and grandson being put to death, she
must have been under tremendous shock. Kesar Bai (PW-1) was
deposing in the court after some time. Naturally, there are bound to be
variations from her earlier version. The trial court which had the
opportunity to observe the demeanour of the witnesses found that the         G
evidence of PWs is credible and trustworthy. While so, the High Court
ought not to have recorded a finding raising doubts about the credibility
of Kesar Bai (PW-1).


                                                                             H
196            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A            21. The trial court had the opportunity of seeing and observing the
      demeanour of the witnesses and the views of the trial court as to the
      credibility of the witnesses is entitled to great weight. Unless the
      appreciation of evidence by the trial court was vitiated by serious error,
      the findings recorded by the trial court ought not to have been interfered
      by the High Court.
B
             22. In our considered view, the High court erred in doubting the
      testimony of Kesar Bai (PW-1). It would be unreasonable to contend
      that merely because Kesar Bai (PW-1) is related to the deceased and
      that there were contradictions in her evidence, her evidence has to be
      discarded. Discrepancies which do not shake the credibility of the witness
C     and the basic version of the prosecution case are to be discarded. If the
      evidence of the witness as a whole contains the ring of truth, the evidence
      cannot be doubted. In Prithu alias Prithi Chand and Another v. State
      of Himachal Pradesh (2009) 11 SCC 588, it was held as under:-
            “14. In Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat
D           (1983) 3 SCC 217, it was observed that undue importance should
            not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies
            which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic
            version of the prosecution witnesses. A witness cannot be
            expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the
E           details of an incident verbatim. Ordinarily, it so happens that a
            witness is overtaken by events. A witness could not have
            anticipated the occurrence which very often has an element of
            surprise. The mental faculties cannot, therefore, be expected to
            be attuned to absorb all the details. Thus, minor discrepancies
            were bound to occur in the statement of witnesses.”
F
            The same principle was reiterated in State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony
      (1985) 1 SCC 505.
             23. The High court proceeded on the footing that the evidence of
      Kesar Bai (PW-1) being the solitary witness is not reliable to base the
G     conviction unless corroborated in material particulars. As discussed above,
      so far as the place of occurrence is concerned, the evidence of PW-1 is
      amply corroborated by other evidence. It is fairly well settled that it is
      not the number; but the quality of the evidence that matters. In terms of
      Section 134 of the Evidence Act, “no particular number of witnesses

H
      STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. CHHAAKKI LAL                                       197
                  [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact”. The test                  A
whether the evidence has a ring of truth is cogent and trustworthy. In
Prithipal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 1
SCC 10, it was held as under:-
      “49. This court has consistently held that as a general rule the
      court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided           B
      he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a
      person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic
      of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. But if there are doubts about
      the testimony, the court will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is
      not the number or the quantity, but the quality that is material. The
      time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and                C
      not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth,
      is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system
      has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence, rather
      than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore,
      open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary          D
      witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the
      accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not
      satisfied about the quality of evidence.”
       The same principle was reiterated in Sudip Kumar Sen alias
Biltu v. State of West Bengal and others (2016) 3 SCC 26.                           E
       24. The version of the prosecution was doubted by the High Court
on the ground that FIR was registered after much delay. As per Dehati
Nalishi-complaint (Ex.-P1), time of incident was at about
12.00-12.30 pm on 20.02.2006 and Dehati Nalishi-complaint (Ex.-P1)
was written at 05.15 pm on the same day. PW-13-IO stated that on                    F
20.02.2006, he was on duty at Health Mela in Senwdha and on receipt
of information from SDO Smt. Rekha Singh, he reached the place of
occurrence and wrote Dehati Nalishi-complaint (Ex.-P1). After the
inquest and the preliminary investigation like preparation of spot map,
seizure etc. on 20.02.2006, FIR was registered on 21.02.2006 at about
02.00 pm. Ramveer (PW-8), son of Kesar Bai (PW-1) was not present                   G
in the village and that he had gone to see his sister. When all the family
members of PW-1 were killed and her son Ramveer (PW-8) away from
the village, it cannot be accepted from Kesar Bai (PW-1) a seventy

                                                                                    H
198             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A     years old rural woman to leave the dead bodies of family members at
      the spot and go to the police station situated at a distance of ten kilometres
      to lodge the complaint. As pointed out by the trial court, the delay in
      registration of FIR has been properly explained.
             25. Delay in setting the law in motion by lodging the complaint or
B     registration of FIR is normally viewed by courts with suspicion because
      there is possibility of concoction of the case against the accused. But
      when there is proper explanation for the delay, the prosecution case
      cannot be doubted on the ground that there was delay in registration of
      FIR. In this case, the delay in FIR has been properly explained and the
      same is not fatal to the prosecution case.
C
             26. The High Court referred to the evidence of Mewalal (PW-11)
      who in his cross-examination has stated that he saw PW-1 weeping at
      08.00-09.00 am and that PW-1 told him that accused persons have killed
      Ganga Singh, Ganeshi Bai, Phoolwati and Rinku. Be it noted that Mewalal
      (PW-11) in his chief-examination stated that at about 12.00-12.30 pm,
D     when he was present at his home in village Ruhera, he heard the firing
      sound of five-six gun shots and that PW-1, mother-in-law of Phoolwati
      passed from the passage crying and saying that the accused Chhaakki
      Lal and Akhilesh had committed the murder of her daughter-in-law
      Phoolwati, her grandson Rinku, Ganeshi Bai and Ganga Singh in
E     Mandawali Dang. Resiling from his version in the chief-examination, in
      cross-examination, PW-11 stated that at about 08.00-09.00 am, when he
      was in his house, PW-1 came to his house saying that accused Chhaakki
      Lal and Akhilesh have committed murder of her daughter-in-law
      Phoolwati, her grandson Rinku, Ganeshi Bai and Ganga Singh. The
      learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/accused submitted
F     that the prosecution has not treated PW-11 hostile and the statement of
      PW-11 in his cross-examination throws serious doubts about the time
      and the manner of occurrence. Of course, PW-11 was not treated hostile;
      but his prevaricating version stood in the cross-examination neither affects
      his version in the chief-examination nor does it affect the prosecution
G     case. The High court was not right in doubting the prosecution case and
      the trustworthiness of Kesar Bai (PW-1) based on the evidence of an
      infirm witness like PW-11.
            27. The accused were arrested on 26.02.2006 and on the basis of
      the disclosure statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence
H     Act, on 01.03.2006, one 0.315 bore katta/desi pistol (Ex.-A4) was seized
      STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. CHHAAKKI LAL                                   199
                  [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

at the instance of accused Chhaakki Lal vide seizure memo Ex.-P20.              A
One 12 bore gun (Ex.-A3) along with two live cartridges (Ex.-EB1 and
EB2) and a gun licence of accused Chhaakki Lal have been seized
under seizure memo Ex.-P21 from accused Akhilesh. One petal khoka
of 0.315 bore (Ex.-P8) was recovered from the dead body of Phoolwati.
Two fired cartridges of 0.315 bore (Ex.-P7) were found near the dead
                                                                                B
bodies of deceased Ganeshi Bai and Ganga Singh respectively. In
Ex.-P32 and Ex.-P33, the Ballistic expert opined that the fired kartoos
(Ex.-EC1 to EC4) have been fired from 0.315 bore katta/desi pistol
(Ex.-A4). Likewise, in Ex.-P32 and Ex.-P33, the Ballistic expert opined
that the two live kartoos (Ex.-LR1 and LR2) could have been fired
from 12 bore gun (Ex.-A3). The opinion of the Ballistic expert tallying         C
with the arms recovered from the accused is seen from the following:-


    Accused    Fired at    Arm recovered       Opinion of Ballistic report

   Chhaakki   Phoolwati   315 bore katta       According to the FSL
                                                                                D
   Lal (A1)               (Ex. A4) – Desi      reports (Ex.-P31, P32 and
                          Pistol     seized    P33), the fired kartoos
                          under Ex. P20        (Ex.-EC1 to Ex.-EC4) has
                                               been fired by 0.315 bore
                                               katta, a desi pistol (Ex. A4).
                                               EB-2 bullet recovered from
                                               the body of Ganga Singh          E
                                               was fired from 0.315 bore
                                               katta (Ex. A4). EB-3 can
                                               be part of EB-2.
   Akhilesh   Rinku       12    bore     gun   According to the FSL
   (A2)                   (Ex.-A3) and two     reports (Ex. P31, P32 and
                          live    cartridges   P33), two live kartoos
                          (EB1 + EB2)          (Ex.-LR1 and LR2) could          F
                          seized       under   be fired by 12 bore gun
                          Ex. P21              (Ex.-A3). Ex.-EB-1 is fired
                                               by 12 bore gun (Ex.-A3)
                                               which was found from the
                                               dead body of Rinku.

        The opinion of the Ballistic expert that the fired kartoos has been     G
fired by 0.315 bore katta/desi pistol (Ex.-A4) recovered from accused
Chhaakki Lal and the opinion that live kartoos (Ex.-EB1 and EB2) were
fired from 12 bore gun (Ex.-A3) recovered from accused Akhilesh amply
proves the involvement of the complicity of the accused in the occurrence
thereby corroborating the evidence of PW-1.                                     H
200             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A           28. As pointed out earlier, country made pistol of 315 bore was
      recovered from Chhaakki Lal on 01.03.2006 (seizure memo Ex.-P20)
      and 12 bore gun was recovered from Akhilesh (Ex.-P21). Contention
      of the learned counsel for the respondent is that Ex.-P20 refers to
      recovery of 315 bore katta whereas the FSL report (Ex.-P32) speaks
      about the examination of country made pistol of 0.315 bore. Further
B
      contention of the respondent/accused is that it has not been explained as
      to how country made pistol of 315 bore has been transformed into 0.315
      bore during FSL report (Ex.-P32).
             29. Of course, in Ex.-P20, it is stated that 315 bore katta was
      recovered from Chhaakki Lal and the same is also mentioned in the
C     sanction order under the Arms Act (Ex.-P14). No doubt, in FSL report
      (Ex.-P32), the gun which was examined by the ballistic expert is stated
      as 0.315 bore katta. There seems to be no variation in the pistol which
      was seized by the police and the one that was examined by the ballistic
      expert. The difference seems to be only in the description of 315 bore
D     katta and 0.315 bore katta. Investigating Officer who seized the
      weapon and the one who wrote Ex.-P20 are not ballistic experts and are
      only laymen in so far as the examination of guns/pistol. Any slight variation
      in the description of katta recovered from Chhaakki Lal does not make
      it a different katta from the one which was examined by the ballistic
      expert (0.315 bore katta).
E
             30. Contention of the respondent/accused is that the FSL Report
      does not say anything about the use of rifle by any of the assailants. It
      was submitted that EB-1 and EB-2 cannot be fired by a country made
      pistol of 0.315 bore or a gun of 12 bore and that EB-1 and EB-2 must
      have been fired from some other big size gun. It was submitted that
F     Kesar Bai (PW-1) has named one Kailash in her cross-examination that
      the said Kailash was kept in custody for about four to six days and the
      possibility that the gun recovered from Kailash was planted on Chhaakki
      Lal cannot be ruled out. It was further submitted that country made
      pistol examined by the FSL must have been recovered only from Kailash
G     and the discrepancies between the recovery and the FSL report has not
      been properly explained.
           31. It appears that there is no 315 bore gun but only 0.315 bore
      gun. The description given by the police that the recovered gun from
      Chhaakki Lal was 315 bore gun is only a mistaken description.
H
      STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. CHHAAKKI LAL                                    201
                  [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

       32. Investigating Officer has stated that Kesar Bai (PW-1) told in        A
her statement recorded by him that the accused used big guns. Kesar
Bai (PW-1) being a rustic village woman may not have been in a position
to give proper description of the gun; the accused cannot take advantage
of the answers elicited from Kesar Bai (PW-1) that “the accused persons
were holding big size gun” as it was only a manner of description by a
                                                                                 B
rustic villager like Kesar Bai (PW-1). The contention of the respondents
that only “big sized gun” stated by Kesar Bai (PW-1) could have been
the gun of Kailash who was taken to custody by the police along with his
gun and later released. This contention does not merit acceptance.
Investigation Officer has categorically denied that the big guns were of
Kailash and Ardaman. Investigating Officer has also denied that because          C
of pressure he did not implicate Kailash and Ardaman and falsely
implicated the accused.
       33. For reversing the verdict of conviction, the High Court has
pointed out that there was delay in sending the seized gun and pistol
(recovered on 01.03.2006) which was sent to the FSL only on 19.04.2006.          D
The High Court has doubted the case of prosecution by observing that
apart from delay in sending the seized guns/pistol, there is no material
showing as to where the seized weapons were kept during the period
from 01.03.2006 to 19.04.2006. Such delay in sending the recovered
weapons to FSL could only be an omission or lapse on the part of the
Investigating Officer. Such omissions or lapses in the investigation cannot      E
be a ground to discard the prosecution case which is otherwise credible
and cogent. InNankaunoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016) 3 SCC
317, it was held as under:-
      “9. ……Any omission on the part of the investigating officer cannot
      go against the prosecution case. Story of the prosecution is to be         F
      examined dehors such omission by the investigating agency.
      Otherwise, it would shake the confidence of the people not merely
      in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of
      justice”.
     34. In V.K. Mishra and Another v. State of Uttarakhand and                  G
Another (2015) 9 SCC 588, it was held as under:-
      “38. The investigating officer is not obliged to anticipate all possible
      defences and investigate in that angle. In any event, any omission
      on the part of the investigating officer cannot go against the
                                                                                 H
202             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A            prosecution. Interest of justice demands that such acts or omission
             of the investigating officer should not be taken in favour of the
             accused or otherwise it would amount to placing a premium upon
             such omissions”.
              35. We are conscious that in an appeal against acquittal, the
B     appellate court would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal.
      But where the approach of the High Court suffers from serious infirmity,
      this court can reappreciate the evidence and reasonings upon which the
      order of acquittal is based. A miscarriage of justice which may arise
      from the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of the
      innocent. Upon reappreciation of the evidence and the reasonings of
C     the trial court and the High Court, in our considered view, the judgment
      of the High Court suffers from serious infirmity. The High Court erred
      in doubting the version of PW-1-the sole eye witness whose evidence is
      corroborated by the medical evidence and the evidence of ballistic expert.
      The High Court did not appreciate the evidence of PW-1 in proper
D     perspective and erred in disbelieving her version on the contradictions
      which are not material. The High court erred in rejecting the credible
      evidence of Kesar Bai (PW-1), which in our considered view resulted in
      serious miscarriage of justice, where four persons were murdered.
             36. Where the evidence has not been properly analysed or the
E     High court has acted on surmises and findings of the impugned judgment
      is unreasonable, it is the duty of the appellate court to set right the wrong.
      In the instant case, the High court has ignored the credible evidence of
      Kesar Bai (PW-1) and unnecessarily laid emphasis on the minor
      contradictions and omissions. However, the order of acquittal by the
      High court cannot be sustained and the judgment of the trial court is to
F     be restored.
             37. After convicting the accused Chhaakki Lal and Akhilesh under
      Section 302 IPC, the trial court held that the case would be one of the
      ‘rarest of rare cases’ and awarded death penalty. The occurrence was
      of the year 2006 and moreover, the appeal against second accused –
G     Akhilesh has been abated due to his passing away. Therefore, considering
      the facts and circumstances of the case and the passage of time, we are
      of the view that awarding of death penalty is not warranted and imposing
      sentence of life imprisonment upon the respondents/accused Chhaakki
      Lal would meet the ends of justice.
H
      STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. CHHAAKKI LAL                               203
                  [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

       38. In the result, the impugned judgment is set aside and these      A
appeals are allowed. The judgment of the trial court convicting the
respondent/accused Chhaakki Lal under Section 302 IPC is restored
and the respondent/accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
life. The respondent/accused Chhaakki Lal shall surrender himself
forthwith within a week to serve the remaining sentence failing which
                                                                            B
he shall be taken into custody.


Divya Pandey                                             Appeals allowed.


                                                                            C




                                                                            D




                                                                            E




                                                                            F




                                                                            G




                                                                            H