Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. 1333 of 2011
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Appellant(s)
VERSUS
MADAN @ MADANIYA Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
N. V. R AMANA , J.
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and
order dated 16.04.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature
for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 678 of
2004, whereby the High Court acquitted the accused of the
1
charges under Sections 302 and 460 of the IPC, giving him the
benefit of doubt.
2. Brief facts according to the prosecution case necessary for the
disposal of this case are as follows. On receiving an anonymous
telephonic information, regarding the killing of one Smt.
Santosh, daughter of Devki Devi Mali, the Police reached the
spot of occurrence and recorded the statement of P.W.10Smt.
Devki Devi, mother of the deceased. Therein, P.W.10Smt. Devki
Devi, alleged that, the accusedRespondent, used to reside in
vicinity and was harboring vengeance against the deceased
Santosh as he believed that, few days earlier he was assaulted
by 78 men, at the instance of the deceased Santosh. On the
date of the incident, while the P.W.10 was at her agricultural
farm, at about 6:00 A.M, P.W.5Seema, her minor daughter
came up to her and informed that, in the preceding night, the
accusedRespondent along with one person entered their home
at around 02:00 A.M. and gave lathi blows to the deceased,
consequent to which she died. P.W.10Devki Devi, thereafter
immediately rushed to the house and found the body of the
deceased lying on the roof.
2
3. On the basis of the aforesaid statement made by P.W.10 (Smt.
Devki Devi), a case was registered against the accused
Respondent and another person, thereafter they were arrested
and subsequent recoveries were made in this regard. After
completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed charging
the accused persons for offence punishable under Sections 302,
460 and 34 of IPC. Thereafter, the accused persons were put on
trial as they did not plead guilty to the charges leveled against
them.
The trial Court vide order dated 11.06.2004, convicted the accused
4.
for offences under Sections 302 and 460 IPC. Accordingly, he
was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section
302 of IPC, with fine of Rs.1000 and in default of payment of
fine, the accused was directed to undergo 2 months rigorous
imprisonment. He was also directed to undergo 10 years
rigorous imprisonment for conviction under Section 460 of IPC
with a fine of Rs.500/ and in default of payment of fine, to
further undergo onemonth rigorous imprisonment.
5. On the other hand, the coaccused Sheokar @ Sheokumar was
3
acquitted by the trial Court after being given the benefit of doubt
for the charges levelled against him under Sections 302 and 460
IPC.
Aggrieved by the above order of conviction, the accused
6.
respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High
Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction
and sentence awarded by learned Sessions Judge. The benefit of
doubt was extended in favor of the accused and he was
acquitted from all the charges.
Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the High Court, the
7.
State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal.
8. The counsel for the appellantState has submitted that, the High
Court has gravely erred while passing the order of acquittal
despite the existing ocular evidence as well as forensic evidence
wherein the guilt of the accused was clearly established.
9. On the other hand, the counsel for the accusedrespondent, while
supporting the order of acquittal has submitted that, on
objective appreciation of evidence, a reasonable doubt exists for
4
disbelieving the case advanced by the prosecution. Hence, the
High Court was right in granting the benefit of doubt to the
accusedrespondent.
Heard learned counsels for the Parties. In an appeal against
10.
acquittal, the appellate court would only interfere where there
exists perversity of fact and law. [See Bannareddy and Ors. vs.
(2018) 5 SCC 790] Further, the
State of Karnataka and Ors,
presumption of innocence is further reinforced against the
acquittedaccused by having a judgment in his favor. [See
Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh v. Republic of India,
(2011) 2 SCC 490 in para. 94].
11. In light of the same, before we proceed to deal with the case, it
would be appropriate to render a look at the statements of
certain prosecution witnesses.
P.W.5 (Seema) aged 14, is the sister of the deceased and the
12.
accused respondent was her maternal cousin, claimed to be an
eyewitness to the said incident. She has stated that, on the date
of occurrence while she, P.W.4 (Kaptan), deceased Santosh and
5
her two sons were fast asleep on the roof, the accused
Respondent had come to their house and had started quarrelling
with the deceased. The accused respondent, thereafter hit the
deceased on her head with a lathi due to which she fell down.
After the incident, she deposed that she went to the fields in the
following morning and informed P.W.10 (Smt. Devki Devi) about
the aforesaid incident. She also stated that, when the Police
came at around 9:00 A.M, her mother (Smt. Devki Devi) came
with the police, although she admitted that none of the family
members had informed the police about the incident.
P.W.4 (Kaptan), aged 12, is the brother of the deceased, claimed to
13.
be an eyewitness to the said incident and the accused
Respondent was his maternal cousin. He stated that, he, P.W. 5
(Seema), deceased Santosh and her sons were sleeping on the
terrace, while their father P.W.11 (Lalchand) was sleeping in the
courtyard. He stated that he woke up to a hue and cry, and he
saw the deceased getting assaulted in a sitting condition. He also
stated that, their house is situated in a populated neighborhood
and adjacent to their house, there was a temple and some one
was sitting on the roof during the occurrence of the incident.
6
Lastly, he stated that, none of the family members had informed
the police about the incident.
14. P.W.10 (Smt. Devki Devi), mother of the deceased, improved upon
her earlier statement and stated that, while she was working in
the fields both P.W.4 (Kaptan) and P.W.5 (Seema) came to the
field to inform about the death of the deceased Santosh.
Thereafter, she immediately returned back to the house and
found the body of deceased lying on the roof.
P.W.11 (Lalchand), father of the deceased, stated that, he was
15.
present in house when the incident took place in the terrace, but
since the accusedrespondent threatened him, he did not
interfere in the said incident. He further stated that, he sent his
minor daughter P.W.5 (Seema) at around 6:00 A.M. to the fields
to inform his wife P.W.10 (Smt. Devki Devi) about the murder of
deceasedSantosh. He further clarified that, he did not send any
neighbor to inform P.W.10 (Smt. Devki Devi) nor did he inform
the Police.
16. P.W.2 (Sohan Singh) stated that, he along with other villagers,
went to the residence of P.W.11 (Lalchand) and asked about the
7
incident but P.W.11 (Lalchand) and P.W.10 (Devki Devi) did not
disclose any name and on the contrary stated that, they are yet
to confirm the same.
It is equally pertinent to note the statements made by the accused
17.
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and other defense witnesses. The
accused in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C has stated
that, he has wrongfully been roped in as accused, due to existing
prior enmity between the parties. The accused has also stated
that, the deceased did not maintain a cordial relationship with
her husband. The husband of the deceased had threatened to
kill her pursuant to their disagreements.
18. D.W.1 (Kartar Singh), stated that he came to know about the
incident in the morning and thereafter, he along with Gurjeet
went to fetch P.W.10, (Smt. Devki Devi) from agricultural field at
the instance of P.W.11 (Lalchand). Thereafter, all three of them
rushed to spot of occurrence by a tempo. This witness has
further, stated that, when he reached the spot of occurrence,
P.W.11 (Lalchand), did not confirm who the assailants were as
he himself was not aware about the same. Additionally, P.W.1
8
(Kartar Singh), stated that one day prior to the incident, the
deceased had an altercation with her husband, who had
threatened to kill her.
On perusal of the statements, we find that, there exists major
19.
contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses while
establishing the circumstances surrounding the murder of the
deceasedSantosh.
20. Firstly , the case of the prosecution strongly relied upon on the
testimony rendered by the two childwitnesses, P.W.4 (Kaptan)
and P.W.5 (Seema). It is an established rule of practical wisdom,
that evidence rendered by the childwitness must be evaluated
carefully and it must find adequate corroboration before it is
relied on. (See (1998) 7 SCC 177) .
Panchhi v. State of U.P.
Although, both P.W.4 (Kaptan) and P.W.5 (Seema) claimed to be
the eye witnesses to the entire incident, they have given different
versions as to the position of the victim, while P.W.4 (Kaptan)
clearly stated that accused gave blows to the deceased while she
was sitting, P.W.5 (Seema) on the contrary has stated that the
victim was standing and after receiving the blow she fell down.
9
Moreover, both the witnesses have failed to state the specific
timing at which the incident occurred.
21. Additionally, owing to severe contradictions in the statements of
the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has failed to prove
the fact as to who gave the information to P.W.10 (Smt. Devki
Devi). In our opinion, the High Court has correctly laid emphasis
on this aspect, as it leads to the inference about the presence of
P.W.4 and P.W.5 at the place of occurrence of the incident. In
light of the above circumstances, the statements of both the
childwitnesses do not inspire confidence.
Secondly, it is also pertinent to observe here that, although the
22.
incident happened around 2.00 A.M., but none of the family
members chose to inform the police about the said occurrence.
Rather the wheel of process, in the present case commenced
upon receiving an anonymous telephonic information by the
Police. P.W.5 (Seema) voluntarily stated in her statement that, a
neighbor might have informed the police about the same. It was
only after the reaching of the Police on the spot of occurrence,
that P.W.10 (Smt. Devki Devi) has stated about the incident and
10
the guilt of the accused.
23. Thirdly, the High Court on perusal of the statement of P.W.11
(Lalchand) has raised suspicion, as it is quite abnormal that, he
being the father of the deceased, did not interfere in the said
occurrence although he was in the same house. Further, he
admittedly did not go up to the terrace to see the deceased till
the police came after long 67 hours, till this time the deceased
was lying on the roof.
the fact as to why he sent his minor daughter instead of
24. Lastly,
some responsible major to inform his wife P.W.10 (Smt. Devki
Devi), who was present in the field at a distance of 23 Kms, at
the early hours in the morning, raises doubt as to the credibility
of this witness. Our attention is also drawn to the fact that, the
statement of P.W.11 (Lalchand) does not speak anything about
the giving of information to independent witnesses D.W.1 (Kartar
Singh) and P.W.2 (Sohan Singh), whereas, both these witnesses
have clearly stated about their encounter with P.W.11 (Lalchand)
and P.W.10 (Deviki Devi), wherein they have expressed
unawareness about the assailants. These contradictions go to
11
root of matter raising questions about the credibility of these
witnesses.
25. After having observed the evidence of the above crucial witnesses,
a reference may be made to observations of this court in
Krishnegowda and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (2017)13 SCC
98, wherein it held that:
Although there is no absolute Rule that the
evidence of related witnesses has to be
corroborated by the evidence of independent
witnesses, it would be trite in law to have
independent witnesses when the evidence of
related eyewitnesses is found to be incredible
and not trustworthy. The minor variations and
contradictions in the evidence of
eyewitnesses will not tilt the benefit of doubt
in favor of the Accused but when the
contradictions in the evidence of prosecution
witnesses proves to be fatal to the
prosecution case then those contradictions go
to the root of the matter and in such cases
Accused gets the benefit of doubt. (emphasis
supplied)
26. In the present case, the evidence relied by the prosecution is full of
contradictions. We cannot ignore the fact that although P.W.4
(Kaptan), clearly admitted that, their house is situated in a
populated neighborhood, it is quite surprising that, when the
12
incident occurred on the terrace no one interfered or came to the
place of occurrence until morning. The prosecution has failed to
provide any independent witness to bring home, the guilt of the
accused.
Further, the High Court also raised doubt while placing reliance
27.
upon the scientific evidence as there existed contradictions in
the seizure list of the clothes of deceased and the forensic
evidence on record, which was left unexplained by the Public
Prosecutor. Additionally, the prosecution has pressed that
recovery was made subsequent to the confession of the accused.
In this context, it is pertinent to note that, the alleged recovery
was made in the presence of P.W.7 (Sukhbir Singh) who is the
paternal cousin of the deceased, who in his statement has stated
that the lathi recovered had blood stains in it. Surprisingly, this
fact of lathi marked in blood stains is not only absent in the
recovery memo but also in the forensic report. These
shortcomings imply a sketchy investigation hence, bringing the
reliability of the above evidences into question considering the
facts and circumstances of the present matter.
13
28. Moreover, the High Court has correctly observed that, the trial
court totally overlooked the defense adduced by the accused
respondent, especially when he has denied the allegations
levelled against him, vitiating the fundamentals of justice. In
light of the above observations, it is correctly concluded that,
there exists reasonable doubt for believing the case laid down by
the prosecution and the guilt of the accused has not been proved
beyond doubt.
It is the duty of the court to separate the grains from the chaff and
29.
to extract the truth from the mass of evidence. In our opinion,
the case of the prosecution is based on mere conjectures and
surmises. Moreover, the material contradictions inevitably raises
a doubt as to whether it was the accusedrespondent, who had
caused the death of the deceasedSantosh. After examining the
rationale behind the conclusion of the High Court in acquitting
the accusedrespondent, we do not find any compelling reasons
to deviate from the same.
30. In our opinion, there exists no perversity in the judgment of the
High Court. Further, in the absence of compelling reasons, this
14
court is not keen to entertain this appeal challenging the order
of acquittal.
31. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any,
shall also stand disposed of.
……………………………..J.
( )
N. V. Ramana
……………………………..J.
( Mohan M. Shantanagoudar )
N EW D ELHI ,
CTOBER
O 25, 2018
15