Merely Because Witnesses Turn Hostile, Their Evidence Doesn’t Necessarily Be Thrown Out Entirely: Apex Court
The Supreme Court observed that merely because the witnesses turn hostile, their evidence does not necessarily be thrown out entirely and what is supportive of the prosecution certainly be used.
The Court observed thus in a Criminal Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the High Court by which it upheld the conviction and sentence imposed upon two persons under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and acquitted the third accused.
The three-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K.V. Viswanathan, and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh elucidated, “Because of the unnaturalness of the testimonies of these neighbours before the court, which defy human behaviour, the reasonable inference one can draw is that these witnesses have been won over. The fact that all these witnesses had close association with Chintaram on account of consumption of ganja also clearly indicates the influence Chintraram, the acquitted father of the present two appellants may have on these witnesses. … However, it is also to be noted that merely because the witnesses turn hostile does not necessarily mean that their evidence has to be thrown out entirely and what is supportive of the prosecution certainly be used.”
The Bench reiterated that non recovery of the weapon of crime is not fatal to the prosecution case and is not sine qua non for conviction, if there are direct reliable witnesses.
Senior Advocate Rajesh Pandey represented the Appellants while DAG Ravi Sharma represented the Respondent.
Facts of the Case -
As per the prosecution case, in 2001, the Complainant who was employed by the parents of the deceased, while washing utensils at the house, heard a cry for help from the deceased. Upon hearing, he came out of the house and saw the three accused persons allegedly hitting the deceased with fists and kicks and urging his two sons to kill him. The Complainant immediately informed the deceased’s parents about the incident and also mentioned about the altercation between the accused and deceased the previous night about Ganja.
Soon thereafter, an FIR was lodged. The case of death of the deceased was mentioned as come as a result of injuries received and death was opined to be homicidal in nature. The Second Additional Sessions Judge convicted the Appellants (all three accused) under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. The High Court affirmed the conviction of two accused while set aside the conviction of the third one. Being aggrieved by this, the two accused i.e., the Appellants were before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “As the two appellants are seeking reversal of the concurrent findings by two courts, the Sessions Court and the High Court, this Court has to tread very cautiously as observed by this Court on numerous occasions including in Mekala Sivaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2022) 8 SCC 253 wherein it has been held that unless the findings are perverse and rendered in ignorance of material evidence, this Court should be slow in interfering with concurring findings.”
The Court explained that reasonable doubt must be free from suppositional speculation which must not be the result of minute emotional detailing, and the doubt must be actual and substantial and not merely vague apprehension. It added that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt.
“The concept of reasonable doubt has to be also understood in the Indian context, keeping in mind the social reality and this principle cannot be stretched beyond a reasonable limit to avoid generating a cynical view of law as observed by this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793”, it said.
The Court remarked that the requirement of law in criminal trials is not to prove the case beyond all doubt but beyond reasonable doubt and such doubt cannot be imaginary, fanciful, trivial, or merely a possible doubt but a fair doubt based on reason and common sense and hence, if the allegations against the Appellants are held proved beyond reasonable doubt, conviction cannot be said to be illegal.
“… the testimony of the police personnel involved in recovery of articles need not be disbelieved and testimony of police personnel is to be treated similarly as testimony of any other witness”, it enunciated.
Furthermore, the Court observed that the plea of the defence is of total denial and the Appellants also claimed complete ignorance of the incident. It also noted that they have taken the plea that they were not in the village during the time of the incident and had gone to another place to attend the housewarming ceremony of a person and returned only in the evening. The Court said that, however, the defence did not lead any evidence about the plea of alibi.
“… the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. However, in the present case, inspite of the untruthful and evasive testimony of the neighbours, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the false plea of the appellants only strengthens the case of the prosecution”, it also said.
The Court remarked that there is no reason as to why the mother of the victim should falsely implicate the Appellants without any rhyme or reason more so when apparently there was no previous animosity of the mother with any of the Appellants.
“In view of the above, we are of the opinion that even if there are certain embellishments and improvements and contradictions which are of minor nature, the evidence of PW-10 on the whole does appear to be consistent and we do not see any cogent reason to disbelieve her claim that she had witnessed the incident. Thus, we are of the opinion that there appears to be no patent illegality in the view taken by the trial court and the High Court”, it added.
Accordingly, the Apex Court partly allowed the Appeal and converted the conviction of the Appellants from Section 302 IPC to Part I of Section 304 IPC.
Cause Title- Goverdhan & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 47)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Rajesh Pandey, AOR Aswathi M.K, Advocates Rahil Kochar, Ayushi Pandey, Nishi Prabha Singh, and Mahesh Pandey.
Respondent: DAG Ravi Sharma, AOR Prashant Singh, Advocates Prerna Dhall, M N Gopinadh, Karishma Rajput, and Shivam Ganeshia.
