Minor Discrepancies In Versions Of Eyewitnesses Not Relevant When There Is Overall Consistency Between Their Statements In Court & Earlier Statements Implicating Accused: Supreme Court
|The State Of Uttar Pradesh filed the appeals challenging the judgment of the Allahabad High Court acquitting the accused persons in a case of murder and dacoity.
The Supreme Court has affirmed the conviction of two accused persons and sentenced them to life imprisonment in a case of murder and dacoity. The Apex Court noted that although there were some minor discrepancies in the versions of the eyewitnesses, the overall consistency between their statements in the Court and their earlier statements implicating the accused was clearly brought out.
The State Of Uttar Pradesh filed the appeals challenging the judgment of the Allahabad High Court accepting the appeals filed by the respondents, namely, Satendra and Neetu, and acquitting them of the charges under Sections 148, 450, 149, 323,149, 307,149 and 302,149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Referring to the testimonies of the witnesses, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar said, “Although there are some minor discrepancies in their versions, the overall consistency between their statements in the Court and their earlier statements implicating both the respondents, namely, Satendra and Neetu, and the acts on their part, has been clearly and lucidly brought out.Thus, we would not treat the versions given by Rajveer Singh (PW-1), Rajpal Singh (PW-2) and Lakshman Singh (PW-3) as improbable or unnatural. On the other hand, their versions and the facts stated by them are utmost believable and should be accepted, as held by the trial court.”
AOR Vishwa Pal Singh represented the Appellant while AOR Arun K. Sinha represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The incident dates back to the year 2004. The eyewitnesses had deposed about the presence of the respondents, namely, Satendra and Neetu, along with three or four other persons, who had broken into the house. It was deposed that two persons came from the roof, and the others entered through the main door, carrying firearms and arms. It was alleged that the miscreants fired gunshots from country-made pistols with the intent to murder them but missed. However, the deceased, Dharampal, chased the miscreants while they were running away, and the respondent, Satendra, who was a fellow villager, fired a gunshot, which hit and killed Dharampal.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench opined that the High Court erred in appreciating the evidence of the three eye-witnesses, namely, Rajveer Singh (PW-1) and Rajpal Singh (PW-2) who are the brothers of the deceased, Dharampal, and Lakshman Singh (PW-3) who is their father.
The Bench noted that the death of Dharampal, as a result of a gunshot injury, was duly proved by the postmortem report. Referring to the testimony of the first three witnesses, the Bench said, “While appreciating their testimonies before the Court, one must keep in mind that they are rustic villagers who were suddenly shaken up by the miscreants entering their house at midnight. They confronted the miscreants, and there was a scuffle between them and the miscreants. The identification of the two accused, namely, Satendra and Neetu, is specifically deposed to in their testimonies, and this factum is corroborated by the FIR (Exhibit – Ka. 4), wherein their names were duly recorded, shortly after the occurrence.”
As per the Bench, another alleged discrepancy relied upon by the High Court to acquit the respondents was more like a contradiction in the reasoning of the High Court. The High Court observed that the eyewitnesses had deposed the same thing without deviating much from the stand taken in the FIR and, therefore, their version was not to be accepted. “We not only find the above reasoning contradictory, but on reading the testimonies of Rajveer Singh (PW-1), Rajpal Singh (PW-2) and Lakshman Singh (PW-3), we are of the opinion that they have been forthright about the facts in the versions stated by them”, it said.
As per the ballistic report, the two empty cartridges recovered from the spot could not be matched with the fired cartridge from the country-made pistol. This, according to the Bench, didn’t dilute the eyewitness accounts and only showed that the police were not able to recover the cartridge/weapon of the offence. Rejecting the contention that the witnesses would not have dared to confront and grapple with the miscreants, the Bench stated, “We are dealing with villagers who were perturbed when they found intruders entering their house to commit dacoity and attacking their father, Lakshman Singh (PW-3). They had not come out empty-handed but with lathis/dandas/sticks to challenge the intruders/miscreants. We, therefore, do not think that the conduct of Rajveer Singh (PW-1), Rajpal Singh (PW-2) and their brothers in challenging the intruders was unnatural, so as to be discarded as unbelievable.”
Thus, affirming the conviction of the Appellants under Sections 323, 450, 307 and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the Bench sentenced them to life imprisonment.
Cause Title: The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Satendra, Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 409)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Vishwa Pal Singh, Advocates Preeti Goel, Adesh Kr. Gill, Akash, Anurag Pandey, Shashank Gusain
Respondents: AOR Arun K. Sinha, AOR Ajay Choudhary, Advocate S K Das