LexABUTHAGIR AND ORS. versus STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MADURAI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 8 S.C.R. 432 , - A ABUTHAGIR AND ORS. v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MADURAI (Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2007) B MAY 8, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] i Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 r!w s. 34, s. 120 and s. 148 - c Conviction under, by courts below relying on evidence of eye- witnesses - Interference with - Held: Not called for, as no infirmity in conviction order - Prosecution witnesses were independent - They had no enmity with the accused - Merely because they revealed the truth long time after seeing the photos of the accused persons would not be factor to discard .. D their evidence. Criminal Law- Delay in examining prosecution witnesses during the course of investigation - Effect on prosecution case E - Held: Not fatal - On facts, since no question was specifically put to investigating officer as to why there was delay in recording the statement of witnesses, no reason to create doubt regarding veracity of prosecution case. .. .. The courts below convicted the appellants under F s.302 r.w. s.34, s.1208 and s.148 IPC on the basis of evidence of eye witnesses. Hence the appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The prosecution version has to be judged G as a whole having regard to the totality of the evidence. " ~ In appreciating the evidence, the approach of the Court must be integrated and not truncated or isolated. The Court has to appreciate in reaching the conclusion about H 432 ABUTHAGIR AND ORS. v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR 433 OF POLICE, MADURAI ·- 'f the guilt of the accused, analyse and assess the evidence A placed before it by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic value and the animus of the witnesses. It is well settled that delay in examination of the prosecution witnesses by the police during the course of investigation ipso facto may not be a ground to create a doubt regarding B the veracity of the prosecution's case. So far as the delay in recording a statement of the witnesses is concerned, no question was put to the investigating officer specifically as to why there was delay in recording the statement. Unless the investigating officer is categorically c asked as to why there was delay in examination of the witnesses the defence cannot gain any advantage therefrom. It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that if there is any delay in examination of a .... particular witness the prosecution version becomes D " suspect. It would depend upon several factors. If the explanation offered for delayed examination is plausible and possible and the Court accepts the same as plausible there is no reason to interfere with the conclusion. [Para 9] (445-8-F] E Devender Pal Singh v. State of N. C. T. of Delhi and Anr. AIR (2002) SC 1661; Hithendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of .. " · Maharashtra AIR (1994) SC 2623; Mohd. Khalid v. State of West Bengal (2002) 7 SCC 334; Harijana Thirupala and Ors. v. Public Prosecutor Andhra Pradesh (2002) 6 SCC 470; F Ranbir and Ors. v. State- of Punjab AIR (1973) SC 1409; Bodhraj @ Bodha and 21?· v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2002) 8 SCC 45; Bant1 @ Guddu v. State of M.P. (2004) 1 sec 414 and State of U.P. v. Satish AIR 1004 SC 261, relied on. G ~ 2.1. It is seen that the PWs 3 and 4 disclosed that they witnessed the incident. Before PW-22 their evidence was recorded. The incident took place on 29.8.1997 and the accused persons were arrested after about 8 months. Till H 434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R. t· ,, - A the arrest of the accused the statements of PWs 3 and 4 were not recorded under Section 161 CrPC. After arrest because their photos were published in the newspapers, that is how PWs 3 and 4 came to the police station on their own accord on two different occasions and gave B statements. PWs 3 and 4 had no interest either for prosecuting the accused or making a statement in the defence. They were independent witnesses. In such a case it is absurd to hold that investigating officer had j erred in recording the statement of PWs 3 and 4. The c investigating agency was making all possible efforts to know the names of the witnesses. This factor cannot be doubted. [Para 9] [445-G-H; 446-A-C] Bachittar Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab (2002) 8 SCC D 125; Vemireddy Satyanarayan Reddy and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 379, relied on. ;c 2.2. A witness is normally considered to be an independent wi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.