People from rural areas have better vision than Town folks: Supreme Court sets aside acquittal in murder case
While setting aside an acquittal and restoring the conviction by the Trial Court, the Supreme Court in its judgment dated July 26, 2021, has observed that,
“The criminal jurisprudence developed in this country recognizes that the eye sight capacity of those who live in rural areas is far better than compared to the town folks. Identification at night between known persons is acknowledged to be possible by voice, silhouette, shadow, and gait also. ”
A bench of Justice Navin Sinha and Justice R Subhash Reddy directed respondent Nos 1 to 3 to surrender within two weeks to serve the remaining period of their sentence and also directed the Director-General of Police, State of Gujarat to take all necessary steps to apprehend the absconding accused and bring him to justice.
Factual Background
In the present matter, the deceased was assaulted by the accused(s) (respondents) with iron pipe, steel rod and stick, causing three stab wounds and nine incised wounds on 01.10.2003 at 2:30 am while he was returning on a motorcycle along with PW2 who was the pillion rider.
The High Court reversed their conviction under Sections 302, 34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) sentencing them to life imprisonment and fifteen days imprisonment under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act.
The appellants thereafter preferred an appeal against the order of acquittal.
Contentions By The Counsel for Appellant and Respondent
Appellant’s Counsel submitted that the deceased and the respondents were well known to each other from earlier. It was also his contention that relations between them had soured and that the respondents had threatened the deceased earlier also. He further submitted that there were street lights near the place of occurrence.
He also submitted that there was no inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence and that the High Court erred in the appreciation of evidence by failing to take note that the iron rod had a sharp edge by which the injuries on the deceased were possible.
On the other hand, the Respondent’s Counsel submitted that the genesis of the occurrence of the injuries was in doubt as the stab and incised injured were not possible by a steel rod or iron pipe.
It was also his contention that the occurrence was stated to have taken place in an open area near a bungalow and not on the street where street lights may be available and that it was a dark night with no moonlight even.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that it did not find substance in the respondent’s submission that identification was not possible in the night to give them benefit of doubt.
Reliance was placed on the Apex Court judgement in Nathuni Yadav vs State of Bihar, (1998) 9 SCC 238 with regards to identification in the dark in which the Court observed that,
“Even assuming that there was no moonlight then, we have to gauge the situation carefully. The proximity at which the assailants would have con fronted with the injured, the possibility of some light reaching there from the glow of stars, and the fact that the murder was committed on a roofless terrace are germane factors to be borne in mind while judg ing whether the victims could have had enough visi bility to correctly identify the assailants. Over and above those factors, we must bear in mind the further fact that the assailants were no strangers to the inmates of the tragedy bound house, the eyewitnesses being well acquainted with the physiognomy of each one of the killers. We are, therefore, not persuaded to assume that it would not have been possible for the victims to see the assailants or that there was a possibility for making a wrong identification of them. We are keeping in mind the fact that even the assailants had enough light to identify the victims whom they targeted without any mistake from among those who were sleeping on the terrace. If the light then available, though meagre, was enough for the assailants why should we think that the same light was not enough for the injured who would certainly have pointedly focussed their eyes on the faces of the intruders standing in front of them.”
While setting aside the order of acquittal, the Court observed that the acquittal by the High Court was based on misappreciation of the evidence and the overlooking of relevant evidence thereby arriving at a wrong conclusion.
“It is not a case where two views are possible or the credibility of the witnesses is in doubt. Neither is it a case of a solitary uncorroborated witness. The conclusion of the High Court is therefore held to be perverse and irrational. The acquittal is therefore held to be unsustainable and is set aside. In the nature of the assault, Section 304 Part II, IPC has no application. The conviction of respondent nos. 1 to 4 by the Trial Court is restored.
Case Title: Pruthviraj Jayanti Bhai Vanol v. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala and Ors| Crl A No 177| 2014