Prosecution’s Case Would Not Be Fatal In Case Of Clinching Evidence Of Eyewitnesses, Non-examination Of Some/Independent Witnesses & /Or In Absence Of Examination Of Any Independent Witnesses: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court bench of Justice DY Chandrachud & Justice MR Shah while recently dismissing the appeal filed against Allahabad High Court order of reversal of acquittal for offences punishable u/s 302 r/w 34, IPC has observed that clinching evidence of eyewitnesses, mere non-examination of some of the witnesses/independent witnesses and/or in absence of examination of any independent witnesses would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. 

Factual Background

On October 6, 1981 when the deceased was going to attend the call of nature, his head was crushed by the accused(s) who were armed with lathis, spear & pistol. On hue & cry, when the first informants rushed towards the deceased, the accused(s) fired a shot from their pistol & ran away along with their weapons. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged against all the accused persons for offences punishable u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC. The trial Court acquitted all the accused persons on the grounds that: 

• PW1 to PW4 – eyewitnesses were related and interested witnesses; no independent witness has been examined; 
• PW2 and PW4, sons of the deceased may be termed as chance witnesses
• Place of occurrence is not proved by the prosecution and there was no occasion for the deceased to reach at the alleged spot
• Absence of fire injuries at the person of the deceased; 
• Prosecution has not explained the injuries to the accused Murlidhar Pathak.

The State thereafter appealed before the High Court & on re appreciation, the entire evidence on record, by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court and consequently convicted the appellant for the offences under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.

Feeling aggrieved & dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court reversing the order of acquittal and convicting the appellant preferred the present appeal.

With regards to whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, the Bench relied on the Apex Court judgements in Babu v. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189, Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police (1999) 2 SCC 10, Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka (2019) 5 SCC 436, Atley v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1955 SC 807 & K.Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1979) 1 SCC 355 to observe that the High Court dealt with each & every ground & on reappreciation of the entire evidence on record the High Court specifically came to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court were perverse and thereafter the High Court interfered with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court.

With respect to the accused’s submission of failure on the prosecution’s part to establish motive, the Bench took note of the fact that the appellant in the 313 statement itself stated that there was an enmity & thereafter affirmed the High Court’s observation that when there is a direct evidence in the form of eyewitnesses and the eyewitnesses are trustworthy and reliable, absence of motive is insignificant. 

Further reference was also placed on the Apex Court judgements in Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2019) 8 SCC 529, Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab (2020) 2 SCC 563, Rizwan Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh (2020) 9 SCC 627 & State of H.P. v. Pardeep Kumar (2018) 13 SCC 808 in which it was observed that examination of independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement and such non-examination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case to uphold High Court’s observation in this respect. 

Thereafter, the Bench while dismissing the appeal & directing the accused to surrender forthwith to serve out sentence observed that, “When the High Court has come to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court while acquitting the accused were perverse and even contrary to the evidence on record and/or misreading of the evidence, the High Court has rightly interfered with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court and has rightly convicted the accused.”

Case Title: Guru Dutt Pathak v. State of Uttar Pradesh|Criminal Appeal No. 502 Of 2015