SHYAM v. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S. BERCHA

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 706

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, S.H. KAPADIA

Case summary

SHYAM v. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S. BERCHA.pdf

Judgment text

SHYAM +v. STATE OF M. P. THROUGH P. S. BERCHA FEBRUARY 15, 2007 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S. H. KAPADIA, JJ. ] __,... Penal Code-S. 302 rlw s. 34-Murder~Caused by inflicting knife injuries-Appeal against conviction by Courts below-Held: Deceased's widow, the eye-witness, gave vivid description about participation ofaccused right from the stage ofFIR-Even after searching cross-examination, nothing to discredit her statement-Courts below justified in placing reliance upon her evidence-Plausible reason given for delay in lodging FIR, hence d"eiay -· condoned-,No variance between medical evidence and ocular evidence as alleged-Conviction sustained. Criminal Trial: - Witness-Related or interested witness-Appreciation of evidence- -\. Duty of Court-Held: No proposition in law that relatives be treated as untrutliful witnesses-But at the same time ifrelatives or interested witnesses are examined, Court has to analyse the evidence with deeper scrutiny. FIR-Delay in lodging-Effect of-Discussed.

Evidence: Medical evidence and ocular evidence-Variance between-Effect oft-- Held: Oral evidence has to get primacy-Medical evidence is basically opinionative-'Medical evidence can be used to repel the testimony of eyewitnesses only ifit is conclusive as to rule out even the possibility ofthe eyewitness's version being true. According to the prosecution, PWI heard alarm raised by her husband and thereafter found Appellant and four other accused grappling with him. ... \ Appellant allegedly went to his house and brought a knife whereafter he and a co-accused 'P' stabbed the husband of PWI with several blows of knife resulting in his death. Trial Court convicted Appellant and 'P' under Section -:: --:). , SHYAMv_ STATEOFM. P. THROUGH P. S. BERCHA 707 302 r/w 34 IPC. The other three accused were acquitted. On appeal, High Court acquitted the said 'P', but upheld the conviction of Appellant, though under S. 304 Part-II IPC. Hence the present appeal challenging the conviction ofAppellant.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: I. In the case of appellant, PW1, the eye witness has right from the stage of the First Information Report, given a vivid description about the participation from the beginning, the manner in which he went to his house 1" and brought the knife and he assaulted and caused injuries to the deceased. The evidence ofDr. H. L. Arya (PW-3) and his autopsy report clearly recorded four external injuries on the body of the deceased. The testimony of this witness has been subjected to searching cross-examination, but nothing has been brought on record to discredit the statement of PW-1. What has been suggested is that the deceased was drunken and that there was grappling between the two in which the deceased sustained injuries. As seen from the injuries recorded in post mortem report, first injury has been sustained in the lumbar region, second on the shoulder, third in the inguinal region and the fourth on the left forearm.

It appears incredible that in grappling, a person ....... would sustain injuries on places where it would be difficult for his hand to ! ' reach. It is also beyond comprehension that in such grappling with a knife in the hand of the deceased, the other party, namely the accused, would escape unscathed. Thus the prosecution has fully succeeded in showing that it was on account of the injuries inflicted by Appellant that the death occurred. [Para 8) [711-B, C, D, El 2. 1. There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield the actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused. No evidence has been led in this regard. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, the witnesses have clearly stated that after seeing the deceased in an injured condition immediate effort was to get him hospitalized and get him treated.

There cannot be any generalization that whenever there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the prosecution case becomes suspect. Whether delay is so long as to throw cloud of suspicion on the seeds of the prosecution case, would depend upon j the facts of each case. Even a long delay can be condoned if the witnesses as to why the report was lodged beh1tedly. In the instant case, this has been ·~· done, Ilt is to be noted that though there was cross-examination at length no infirmity was noticed in their evidence. Therefore, the trial Court and the f-· High Court were right in relying on the evidence PW-1. IPara 91 1711-E, G, H; 712-AI 2. 2. In some cases persons may not like to come and depose as witnesses and in some other cases the prosecution may carry the impression that their evidence would not help it as there is likelihood of partisan approach so far as one ofthe parties is concerned. In such a case mere non-examination would not affect the prosecution version.

But at the same time if the relatives or 't interested witnesses are examined, the Court has a duty to analyse the evidence with deeper scrutiny and then come to a conclusion as to whether it has a ring of truth or there is reason for holding that the evidence was biased. Whenever a plea is taken that the witness is partisan or had any hostility towards the accused, foundation for the same has to be laid. Ifthe materials show that there is partisan approach, as indicated above, the Court has to analyse the evidence with care and caution. Additionally, the accused persons always have the option of examining the left out persons as defence witnesses. [Para 1111712-C, D, El . 3. 1. So far as the alleged variance between medical evidence and ocular evidence is concerned it is trite law that oral evidence has to get primacy and medical evidence is basically opinionative.

It is only when the medical evidence specifically rules out the injury as claimed to have been inflicted as per the oral testimony, then only in a given case the Court has to draw adverse inference. [Para 10) (712-B, q 3. 2. It has now become axiomatic that medical evidence can be used to repel the testimony of eyewitness only if it is so conclusive as to rule out even the possibility of the eyewitness's version to be true. A doctor usually confronted with such questions regarding different possibilities or probabilities of causing those injuries or post-mortem features which he noticed in the medical report may express his views one way or the other depending upon the manner the question was asked. But the answers given by the witness to such questions need not become the last word on such possibilities. After all he gives only his opinion regarding such questions.

But to discard the testimony of an eyewitness simply on the strength ofsuch opinion expressed by the medical witness is not conducive to the administration of criminal '"' justice. (Para 12) [712-F, G, H; 713-A) 3. 3. In this case it has been categorically held that there is no variance. ~'"'-- That being so, even the hypothetical plea is also applicable. ! Para 13J (713-BJ ---- . hand to reach. It is also beyond comprehension that in such grappling with a knife in the hand of the deceased, the other party, namely the accused, would escape unscathed. We have recorded the submission only to discard it. Thus the prosecution has fully succeeded in showing that it was on ~ account of the injuries inflicted by accused Shyam that death of Kailash occurred. 9. There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses.

On the contrary, reason has to be shown when a plea ~-{ of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield the actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused. No evidence has been led in this regard. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, the witnesses have clearly stated that after seeing the deceased in an injured condition immediate effort was to get him hospitalized and get him treated. There cannot be any generalization that whenever there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the .... ). prosecution case becomes suspect. Whether delay is so long as to throw cloud of suspicion on the seeds of the prosecution case, would depend upon the facts of each case. Even a long delay can be condoned if the witnesses 712 [2007] 2 S. C. R. as to why the report was lodged belatedly. In the instant case, this has been ! -done. It is to be noted that though there was cross-examination at length no infomity was noticed in their evidence.

Therefore, the trial Court and the High Court were right in relying on the evidence PW-I. I0. So far as the alleged variance between medical evidence and ocular evidence is concerned it is trite Jaw that oral evidence has to get primacy and medical evidence is basically opinionative. It is only when the medical evidence specifically rules out the injury as claimed to have been inflicted as per the oral testimony, then only in a given case the Court has to draw adverse inference. · 11. In some cases persons may not like to come and depose as witnesses and in some other cases the prosecution may carry the impression that their evidence would not help it as there is likelihood of partisan approach so far as one of the parties is concerned. In such a case mere non-examination would not affect the prosecution version.

But at the same time if the relatives or interested witnesses are examined, the Court has a duty to analyse the evidence with deeper scrutiny and then come to a conclusion as to whether it has a ring of truth or there is reason for holding that the evidence was biased. Whenever a plea is taken that the witness is partisan or had any --... hostility towards the accused, foundation for the same has to be laid. If the materials show that there is partisan approach, as indicated above, the Court has to analyse the evidence with care and caution. Additionally, the accused persons always have the option of examining the left out persons as defence witnesses. 12. Over dependence on such opinion evidence, even if the witness is an expert in the field, to checkmate the direct testimony given by an eyewitness is not a safe modus adoptable in criminal cases.

It has now become axiomatic that medical evidence can be used to repel the testimony of eyewitness only if it is so conclusive as to rule out even the possibility of the eyewitness's version to be true. A doctor usually confronted with such questions regarding different possibilities or probabilities of causing those injuries or post-mortem features which he noticed in the medical report may express his views one way or the other depending upon the manner the question was asked. But the answers given by the witness to such questions need not become the last " -word on such possibilities. After all he gives only his opinion regarding such questions. But to discard the testimony of an eyewitness simply on the strength of such opinion expressed by the medical witness is not conducive to the administration of criminal justice. (See, State ofU. P. v. Krishna Gopal and Anr. , AIR (1988) SC 2154 and Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha & Ors. , [2003] 12 SCC 606]. 13.

In this case it has been categorically held that there is no variance. That being so, even the hypothetical plea is also applicable. 't 14. In the aforesaid circumstances the judgment ofthe High Court does not suffer from any infinnity. 15. The appeal is dismissed. B. B. B. Appeal dismissed. . i