JAI PRAKASH TIWARI vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 704 OF 2018 AI RAKASH IWARI PPELLANT S J  P  T              …A ( ) ERSUS V S TATE   OF  M ADHYA  P RADESH        …R ESPONDENT ( S )   JUDGMENT   AMANA   N.V.   R   , CJI.   1. The   present   appeal   arises   from   the   judgment   dated 26.05.2017 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur   in   Criminal   Appeal   No.   1870/2005.   The   High Court   dismissed   the   appellant’s   appeal   against   judgment dated 18.08.2005 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi in Sessions Trial No. 119/2003, confirming his conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (‘Arms   Act’).  Signature Not Verified The   appellant   was   sentenced   to   undergo   three   years   of 2. Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2022.08.04 16:53:43 IST Reason: rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/­ under Section 1 307 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo three years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/­ under Section 27 of the Arms Act and one year of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/­ under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Appellant has undergone approximately 1 year, 7 months of his sentence and was released on bail by this Court during the pendency of the present appeal. 3. The   factual   matrix   as   per   the   prosecution   is   that,   on 14.02.2003   at   about   10:30   p.m.,   the   appellant   and   co­ accused went to the complainant’s house and called him outside. When the complainant came out, the appellant fired at him with a country­made pistol. The complainant (PW2) is stated to have run into the house and escaped injury while the appellant and co­accused fled from the spot on their motorcycle. The complainant’s mother (PW3) was allegedly present in the house at the time of the incident and the complainant’s neighbours (PW1, PW10, PW11) arrived upon hearing the sound of gunfire. The firearm used in the alleged incident is stated to have been recovered from the appellant, along with an empty cartridge. 2 The   prosecution   charged   the   appellant   and   co­accused 4. under   Section   307/34   IPC   and   Sections   25(1B)   (a)   and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act. After perusal of evidence on record   and   examination   of   witnesses,   the   trial   Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as specified above while   acquitting   the   co­accused,   as   the   prosecution   had failed to prove the charges against him. By way of impugned order dated 26.05.2017, the Madhya Pradesh High Court confirmed   the   appellant’s   conviction   and   sentence. Aggrieved, the appellant approached this Court in appeal by way of special leave. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the testimony of the complainant (PW2) and the hearsay evidence of his mother (PW3), who is an interested witness, and there is no corroborative   evidence   or   independent  witness   to   support their  testimonies. He has  submitted  that  the  prosecution witnesses to both the incident as well as the alleged recovery of the firearm have turned hostile. He has also relied on the testimony of the IO (PW9) to state that no empty cartridges 3 or pellets were recovered from the place of incident, which casts a doubt upon the prosecution’s case. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the complainant has a close nexus with the police department as his father is a retired Inspector and his brother and sister are also police officers. He also submits that besides the complainant, no witness has been produced by the prosecution who had seen the appellant at the site of the incident.  6. Learned   counsel   for   the   respondent­State,   on   the   other hand, has supported the concurrent judgments of conviction given by the courts below. He has stated that there is no error in relying on the statements of the complainant (PW2) and his mother (PW3), whose testimony is corroborated by ballistic   evidence   and   seizure   of   the   firearm   and   empty cartridge from the appellant.  Heard  the   learned   counsel   on   merits   and   perused   the 7. material on record. The  prosecution strongly relies upon the statement of the 8. complainant and his mother. A perusal of the statement of the   complainant   reveals   that   the   accused­appellant   had 4 come in front of his house and upon asking as to why they were here, the accused­appellant and his companion kept quiet. The complainant asked them to leave. Thereafter, the accused allegedly took out his country made pistol and fired a shot at the complainant. The accused and his companion then sped away on their bike. The complainant had already run   inside   the   house   and   was,   therefore,   unharmed. Subsequently, the mother of the complainant and his three neighbours came to the scene of the occurrence.  9. From the evidence on record, it is clear that, apart from the complainant   and   his   mother,   the   other   independent witnesses namely Rajat Shukla (PW1), Amit Bhasin (PW10) and   Vikas   Shukla   (PW11)   have   denied   witnessing   the incident. Even, the Sub­Inspector­Rahul Sharma (PW9), in his cross examination, has stated that the abovementioned witnesses during their police statements under Section 161 of  the   Cr.P.C,   had   indicated   that  they   had   not  seen  the accused­appellant firing the shot.  10. Under the above circumstances, the only evidence available to prove the presence of the accused at the scene, apart from 5 the testimony of the complainant himself, is that of PW3, his mother. Although, the counsel on behalf of the accused has argued that the testimony of the aforesaid witness should not be taken into consideration as she is an “interested” witness, it is an established principle of law that a close relative   cannot   automatically   be   characterized   as   an “interested” witness. However, it is trite that even related witness statements need to be scrutinized more carefully. [See  , (2018) 6 SCC Bhaskarrao v. State of Maharashtra 591 ;  State of Rajasthan v. Madan , (2019) 13 SCC 653 ] 11. In the above context it is pertinent to note the statement of the complainant (PW2) and the mother of the complainant (PW3): Deposition of PW2 In Examination­in­Chief, it is stated by PW2 that: th “… On 14   February 2003 at 10.30 pm, I was   at   my   home.   At   that   very   time, Jaiprakash and Pintu had come in front of my house on motorcycle and blew horn twice whereupon I had come outside. When I had come   outside   my   house   I   had   seen   Pintu Dubey   on   driving   seat   and   Jaiprakash   as pillion   rider,   Motorcycle   was   on.   I   asked Pintu   that­what   is   the   purpose   of   coming, whereupon   he   replied   that­Jaiprakash   has brought me with him, so ask him. So, I had asked Jaiprakash but he did not reply. It felt 6 like Jaiprakash was intoxicated So I asked them to leave and that I will talk to them later. Then Pintu raced the bike. As soon as Pintu   raced   the   bike,   at   that   very   time Jaiprakash had taken out the Country made pistol and fired on me and they had gone away abusing. By that time, I had run and entered the house.  Thereafter,   two   three   people   from   the locality   had   come.   My   mother   also   had   come.    My neighbours named Amit Bhasin, Vikas Shukla, Rajat Shukla had come there. My   mother   asked   me   that­what   had happened, so I told her about the incident.”   Deposition of PW3 In Examination­in­Chief, it is stated by PW3 that: th “… the incident is of 14  February, 2003 at about 10.30 pm.   I was at my home.   The voice of boys had come from outside, sound of   motorcycle   also  had   come.    Sound   was coming from  outside  that  – Sandeep  come outside,   whereupon   Sandeep   had   gone   outside.     I had followed him as well.        Two boys were sitting on motorcycle, motorcycle was start.   It was sounding as if someone was abusing in loud voice and they had fired during conversation itself.   So Sandeep had come inside immediately when fired.” In cross­examination, it is stated by PW3 that: “I was in the verandah first.    I had come outside when I heard sound of gunshot . The verandah is open from where the outer scene is visible. It is not true to say that I had merely heard the bang…… and even I had witnessed it.” 7 Then again in cross­examination, it is stated: “….  I was not acquainted with the accused persons beforehand .   It is not true to say that I have not seen the incident…” (emphasis supplied) It must be noted that the complainant clearly states that his 12. mother came to the spot after the incident. On the other hand, in the chief examination, his mother states that she followed   the   complainant   when   he   went   outside   and therefore,   she   witnessed   the   incident.   In   her   cross­ examination, she states that she came outside when she heard the gunshot. However, she saw the incident from the verandah. 13. Contradictions aside, it must be noted that the incident took place   at   around   10:30   pm   in   the   night.   It   is   no­where mentioned that the accused and PW3 were familiar to the extent that she could recognize him in a fleeting moment while he was speeding away on his bike. She also failed to provide any discernable features of the accused­appellant. In fact, she specifically states that she was not acquainted with the accused persons. It seems highly improbable that the mother  of the  complainant,  PW3  instantly  recognized the 8 appellant­accused   at   night.   No   effort   has   been   made   to conduct   an   identification   test,   to   associate   the   accused­ appellant with the alleged incident. After closely scrutinizing the statement of PW3, mother of the complainant, we must state that the same does not inspire confidence.    14. The High Court and the trial Court have laid great emphasis on the recovery of a motorcycle and a country­made pistol from the possession of the accused­appellant.  15. In this context, it is pertinent to note the statements of PW5 and PW8, the witnesses to the seizure: Deposition of PW5 In Examination­in­Chief, it is stated that: “Police   had   caught   Jaiprakash   and   found one   country   made   pistol   while   searching him…..   I   do   not   remember   whether   any documentation had been done or not.   Then Jaiprakash had been held in the lockup and I had returned back.   Police had not seized any vehicle before me. It is important to note that at this stage, the AGP sought permission to ask leading question   to   the   witness   declaring   him hostile ……  I   do   not   remember   this   today that whether a motorcycle had been seized from accused Jaiprakash before me or not.” In Cross­Examination, it is stated that: 9 “I know Sandeep Upadhyaya.   I have good terms   with   him….   The   neighbours   of Jaiprakash were not present when the Police had done proceedings, then said that people were there but he did not know them.   No neighbours   of   Jaiprakash   had   signed   the documents.     Police   had   not   called   the neighbours of Jaiprakash.” Deposition of PW8 In Examination­in­Chief: Police   had   seized   one   country   made   pistol from accused.    No other thing other than pistol had been seized before me nor had the accused stated to seize the same in my presence. It is not true to say that one black coloured Splendor   motorcycle   wherein   MP   17   MB 9735 was written had not been seized from accused Jaiprakash before me.” (emphasis supplied) 16. The sub­Inspector­Rahul Sharma (PW9) has stated in his evidence that the alleged motorcycle and the country made pistol were seized from the complainant’s house based on the disclosure statement of the accused­appellant. However, the   witnesses   to   the   seizure   (PW5   and   PW8)   have   given varying statements regarding the same. In fact, PW5 clearly stated   that   there   was   no   recovery   of   bike,   and   he   was, therefore,   declared   hostile   by   the   prosecution.   Moreover, although PW8 has stated that no other thing other than the 10 pistol   was   seized,   he   contradicts   himself   by   stating   that indeed a black coloured splendor motorcycle was seized. The aforesaid contradiction in the statement of PW8 cannot be stated to be minor. The same, therefore, does not inspire confidence. It also needs to be noted that there has been no recovery of 17. any   pellet,   empty   cartridge,   or   any   remains   of   the gunpowder   from   the   spot.   In   the   absence   of   a   ballistic report,   there   is   no   clear   connection   between   the   seized weapon   and   the   alleged   incident.   Moreover,   even   the complainant   had   given   a   vague   description   of   the motorcycle. Neither the license number nor the colour or any other   distinguishing   features   have   been   indicated   by   the complainant. Even here, there is no linking factor between the seized vehicle and the alleged incident. Another   important  issue  that  merits  consideration  in  the 18. present appeal is that the accused­appellant, in his Section 313 statement, stated that he and the complainant belonged to opposing student parties. The accused­appellant claimed that owing to the animosity pertaining to the elections, the 11 accused­appellant was falsely implicated in the matter. He also produced two witnesses to prove his alibi. DW1 and DW2   have   stated   that   the   accused   appellant   was   in   his village as his mother was unwell. Moreover, the accused­ appellant also pointed out to the Court that the father, sister and brother of the complainant were all a part of the police department.   The   accused­appellant   also   brought   to   the notice of the Court  the fact that the complainant had also registered   another   criminal   case   against   the   accused­ appellant in which he already stands acquitted. 19. In the case at hand, the alternate version put forth by the appellant­accused could not be ignored.  Section 313 CrPC confers a valuable right upon an accused to establish his innocence and can well be considered beyond a statutory right, as a constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21 of   the   Constitution.[See   Reena   Hazarika   v.   State   of Assam , (2019) 13 SCC 289] This   Court   in   the   case   of   20. Satbir   Singh   v.   State   of ,   (2021)   6   SCC   1,   while   emphasising   upon   the Haryana 12 significance of Section 313 CrPC, has delineated the duty of the trial Court and held thus:

(emphasis supplied ) 21. In   the   context   of   the   abovementioned   precedents,   it   is imperative to have a look at the evidence of the defence:   “E XAMINATION   OF  A CCUSED  N O .1   Q3 On   dated   14.2.03   at   about   10:30   O’ clock   in   the   night   you   accused   and   co­ accused Pintu @ Padamdhar Dubey had come 13 to house of complainant Sandeep Upadhyay (PW2) situated at Arjun Nagar, Uttar Karodiya by   Hero   Honda   Motorcycle   bearing   number MP 17B/9795.  What do you say? Ans: It is incorrect.  I had gone to village .   D EFENCE   PLEA   OF   ACCUSED   When   accused   Jaiprakash  Tiwari s/o   Girija Prasad Tiwari has been called upon to enter his defence, then he states that:­ I   had   not   casted   vote   in   the   favour   of Sandeep’s candidate in the election of college. Sandeep was in favour of N.S.U.I.   I was in   favour   of       Vidhyarthi   Parishad     (Student Council).    Due to this reason, I have been   falsely implicated   . On asking from the accused that whether he has to give defence evidence, then he states that :­ I have to give defence evidence.   D EPOSITION   OF  DW1      E XAMINATION ­ IN ­C HIEF   I know accused Jaiprakash and his parents. 1. Their house is at Maata; at Karaudia in Sidhi; at   village   Amahatola   and   Hanumangarh, Veldah as well.  On 14.02.2003, I had reached the house of the accused at 9­9:15 hours at North Karaudia and taken him to his house at village   Maata   on   motorcycle   as   his   mother had   fallen   sick   at   village   Maata.     We   had reached   Maata   at   11­11.30   hours.     Then Jaiprakash   Tiwari   had   called   the   Jan Swasthya Rakshak at about 12 hours and got his mother treated.  Drip had been applied to 14 th   his mother till morning on 15       and at that time two to four people were there along with Jaiprakash. Deposition of DW2   E XAMINATION ­ IN ­C HIEF   1. I know accused Jaiprakash.  His house is in Sidhi and at Maata as well.   On 14.2.2003, Jaiprakash was at village Maata.   Mother of Jaiprakash was suffering from vomiting and diarrhea and therefore as per my information Jaiprakash   has   been   at   village   Maata   from 11.00am till 8 am the other day on 15.2.2003. 2. I   had   myself   seen   Jaiprakash   going   to   his house.     I   am   neighbour   of   Jaiprakash. Jaiprakash   had   been   called   from   Sidhi   to Maata   by   Shankardayal   as   mother   of Jaiprakash was not well.  I had heard after 4­ 6 days that Jaiprakash had been arrested for some incident of the said date.” (emphasis supplied) 22. In the present case, the accused while being examined had stated himself that he had gone to his village on the date of the incident. To support his case, he produced two defence witnesses who have corroborated his presence in the village. Furthermore, the accused claimed to be falsely implicated in the   case   owing   to   political   rivalry.   However,   without scrutinizing the aforesaid plea of the defence, the trial Court observes: 15 “10.   The   accused   Jayprakash   Tiwari   has not   stated   anything   in   his   examination that he has been falsely implicated in the case by the. prosecution witnesses or any other   reason   or   motive   for   his   false   implication.    The evidence of the complainant Sandeep   is   corroborated   by   the   evidence   of Amit Bhasin_PW_10 and Vikash ­PW­11 who had   reached   the   place   of   occurrence immediately   after   the   incident   and   in   such situation   the   evidence   of   the   complainant Sandeep   Upaddhyay   and   other   prosecution witnesses is believable and it is proved from their evidence that on the date of incident the accused   Jayprakash   Tiwari   had   fired   upon the   complainant   Sandeep   Upaddhay   from firearm   katta   with   knowledge   and   intention under   such   circumstances   that   if   the complainant   had   died   then   the   accused Jayprakash Tiwari would be guilty of murder.” (emphasis supplied) 23. In a similar manner, the trial Court refused to weigh in the evidence   of   alibi.   The   trial   Court   while   disbelieving   the defense witnesses observes: “14.  In such a situation the defence plea of the accused appears to be an afterthought . From the perusal of the evidence of the defence witnesses   Shankerdayal   Mishra_DW_l   and Krushnakumar   Tiwari_PW­2   it   is   clear   that both ∙the witnesses are the neighbours of the accused and residents of same village. Being farmers and after a gap of two years they have remembered the date of incident.   It appears that these witnesses are trying to save the 16 accused   by   stating   his   presence   in   their village .” (emphasis supplied) 24. The   High   Court   without   independently   analyzing   the aforesaid statements and evidence, upholds the finding of the Trial Court. The High Court observes that: “22.   This   Court   is   in   agreement   with   the findings   of   learned   trial   Court   that,   defence taken by the appellant has not been suggested any   prosecution   witness,   nor   stated   by   the appellant during his accused statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The   plea   of   alibi   has   been   taken   by   the appellant is after thought. Hence, no benefit is granted in favour of the appellant with regard to   plea   of   alibi.   Thus,   the   conviction   of   the appellant under Section 307 of IPC, is hereby maintained.” 25. In the present case, the courts below failed to scrutinize the defence version put forward by the appellant­accused in his Section 313 statement. The object of Section 313 of the Code is to establish a direct dialogue between the court and the accused. (See  Asraf Ali v. State of Assam ,  (2008) 16 SCC 328) 26. The purpose of Section 313 CrPC is to provide the accused a reasonable opportunity to explain the adverse circumstances 17 which have emerged against him during the course of trial. A   reasonable   opportunity   entails   putting   all   the   adverse evidences   in   the   form   of   questions   so   as   to   give   an opportunity to the accused to articulate his defence and give his explanation.   27. If all the circumstances are bundled together and a single opportunity is provided to the accused to explain himself, he may   not   able   to   put   forth   a   rational   and   intelligible explanation. Such, exercises which defeats fair opportunity are nothing but empty formality. Non­fulfilment of the true spirit of Section 313 may ultimately cause grave prejudice to the accused and the Court may not have the benefit of all the   necessary facts and circumstances to arrive at a fair conclusion.  28. Such an omission does not  ipso facto  vitiate the trial, unless the  accused  fails  to prove  that grave  prejudice  has  been caused to him. Although the counsel on behalf the accused has not proved any serious prejudice caused to him due to failure   of   the   Court   in   framing   individual   circumstances; however, considering the long pendency of the matter and 18 the right of the accused to have a fair and expeditious trial, we propose to proceed and decide the matter on its own merit. 29. It is an established principle of criminal law that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is   upon   the   prosecution.   Where  an   accused   sets   up   a defence or offers an explanation, it is well­settled that he is not required to prove his defence beyond a reasonable doubt but only by preponderance of probabilities.  [See  M. Abbas v. State of Kerala , (2001) 10 SCC 103 ]. Further, it has been held by this Court in   Parminder Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2020) 8 SCC 811   that “ once a plausible version has   been   put   forth   in   defence   at   the   Section   313   CrPC examination stage, then it is for the prosecution to negate such defence  plea”.  Moreover,   it   is   the   solemn   duty   of   the   courts   below   to 30. consider   the   defence   of   the   accused.   The   same   must   be considered   with   caution   and   must   be   scrutinised   by application of mind by the judge. The Court may accept or reject the same, however it cannot be done cursorily. The 19 reasoning and the application of mind must be reflected in writing. However, from the observations extracted above, it is clear that the courts below have failed to undertake this solemn duty. Rather, the evidence of the accused has been dealt by the Court in a casual manner. In   the   above   circumstances,   when   there   is   absence   of 31. independent evidence corroborating the statements made by complainant, serious doubts regarding the recovery of the alleged   motorcycle   and   the   country   made   pistol,   no connection proved between the alleged recovered items and the alleged incident, and the plausible version put forward by the accused­appellant in his Section 313 statement has not been satisfactorily responded to by the prosecution, the case against the accused­appellant cannot be sustained. It is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the 32. chaff and to extract the truth from the mass of evidence. In our opinion, the case of the prosecution is based on mere

Court failed to consider the abovementioned circumstances while rendering the judgment convicting the accused. The 20 evidence brought on record by the prosecution is insufficient to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.  33. For   these   reasons,   the   appeal   is,   therefore,   allowed.   The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are set aside.   The   appellant   is   on   bail.   The   appellant   stands discharged from the bail bonds. ............................CJI. (N. V. RAMANA) ..…..........................J. (KRISHNA MURARI) .........…………….......J.     (HIMA KOHLI) NEW DELHI; AUGUST 04, 2022. 21