BADRI versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 339 · Decided: 06-11-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
339 
HAD RI 
A 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
November 6, 1975 
[M. H. BEG AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.] 
Evidendc-Corroboration-Qua/ity. not quamity that matters. 
The appellant was convicted for the offence of murder. 
P.W. 1, brother. of 
the deceased, was the sole eye.witness of the crime and his statement was re-
corded by the Magistrate under s. 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, during 
inyestigation. 
· 
B 
The trial Court found certain discrepancies in the evidence of P. W. 1, re· 
C 
. garding the range of shooting and about the second gun shot. but observed that, 
because he tried to embellish his statement, it could not be said that he was an 
unreliable witness. 
The Court accepted his evidence since it found oorrobo-
ratiott in the evidence of P.W. 5 who said that he s.aw the appellant running with 
a gun about the time of occurrence. 
P. W. 5 was, however, not mentioned in 
the First Information Report. 
The High Court, however, took the' view that the evidence of P.W. 1 was 
reliable. 
It also believed the corroborative evidence of P.W. 5 and upheld the 
conviction and sentence of the appellant and felt assured by the statements of 
persons to whom P.W. 1 reported immediately after the occurrence that, in 
his presence, the accused fired at the deceased. 
Allowing the appeal, 
D 
HELD : (1) The fact that the !ltatement of the witness (P.W. 1) was record-
ed by the Magistrate under s. 164. Cr.P.C. is not a ground for rejecting the evi-
E 
dence. There cannot be any hard and fast rule of law for treating a witness as 
suspect from the mere fact of his statement being recorded under s. 164 Cr.P.C. 
If the Court finds that the evidence of a witness has been consistent throughout 
and there was no reason whatsoever for the Police to have taken' steps for bis 
statement being recorded under s. 164, Cr.P.C., the fact of such recording would 
be of no moment in appraising the testimony of such a witness. [343 F-Gl 
(2) Howeve~, P.W. 1 cannot be said to be an absolutely reliable witness and 
F 
both the trial Court and the. High Court proceeded on the view that his evidence 
required corroboration. f344 El 
(a) It is not possible to accept evidence of P.W. 5 as corroborating the 
evidence of P.W. 1. 
His evidence stands untested by cro&s-examination 
on 
material points. namel.Y,, whether he went to the scene of the occurrence and 
whether he had informed anybody at the place of the occurrence as to .his having 
seen the accused escaping with a gun. 
The trial Court had committed a serious 
G 
error in disallowing the defence cOunsel to cross-examine him on the ground that 
they were mere omissions not amounting to contradictions. The questions were 
clearly admissible under s. 162, Cr.P.C. read with s. 145 of the Evidence Act. 
The High Court failed to notice this aspect while accepting the evidence of 
P.W. 5. [343 A-Bl 
(b) Even the prompt lodging of the First Information 
Report &bowing 
P.W. 1 as an eye-witness an<! mention of gun fire in the First Information Report 
II 
would not be the requisite corroboration needed for the purpose of accepting 
his testimony. If the witness himself is not absolutely reliable, his repeatint 
tbe name of the accused to several persons, after the occurrence. would not add 
fo the quality of his evidence. [345 BJ 
A 
B 
·c 
D 
340 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] 2 s.c.R. 
(c) In the instant case, there is a discrepancy in P.W. l's statement, 
as 
recorded in the First Information Report, that he was with the deceased at the 
time of firing, and his evidence in the Court that he saw from the by-Jane 
on the opposite side entirely the accused firing with his gun. This app_eared 
in the view of the site plan, to be a serious discrepancy in the evidence of an 
only e~-witness which, throws grave doubt about his presence at the time of 
shooting. There is also a contradiction between the evidence of the witness who 
gave the First Information Report and the statement in the F.I.R. regarding 
what P.W. 1 told him immediately after the occurrence. Therefore, it is not 
possible to agree with the High Court that the F.I.R. would also lend assurance 
to the credibility of P.W. 1. [345 F-GJ 
(3) If P.W. 5 mentioned. at the place of occurrence, that he had seen the 
accused running away with a gun, omission to mention his name in the F.I.R. 
could not be dismissed as inoonsequential. [343 CJ 
( 4) Since, under the Evidence Act, no particular number of witnesses are 
required for the proof of an

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.