LexBHAG SINGH AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BHAG SINGH AND ORS. ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB SEPTEMBER 3, 1997 (M.K. MUKHERJEE AND K. T. THOMAS, JJ.) Criminal law-Evidence of eye witness cannot be assailed merely on the ground of exactitude/precision-Precision or vagueness in testimony depends on the individual-A broad angel taking aspects like examination in coun, the nanation, etc. to be considered. The appellants were found guilty of murder of B, by the Sessions Court which finding was upheld by the High Court. On appeal before this Court, it was submitted on behalf of the appellants, that the evidence of the witnesses who were convicted in an earlier murder case involving the father A B c of one of the appellants, and who were consequently antagonistic towards D the appellants should not be relied on; the appellants acted in retaliation; that it was not possible for the witnesses to recount accurately what transpired and since the witnesses in this case have done so, their testimony should not be relied upon. Dismissing the appeals, the Court E HELD : 1. There is no good ground to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed on the appellants as confirmed by the High Court. There is no dispute that PW-13, was present at the scene and he also sustained serious injuries including lacerated and incised wounds on the F head. This fact helps to agree with the finding of the two courts that PW-13, was able to see the assailants who attacked him and the deceased. He mentioned the names of the appellants as assailants without doubt. Evidence shows that it was a moonlit night. The other two eye witnesses - PW-U, and PW-14, supported the version of PW-13. It may be true that PW-U, PW-13, and PW-14, must have been simmering with grouse against G the appellants for giving evidence against them which led to their convic- tion. Bad blood would have existed as between them. But it is a fact that PW-13, had also suffered injuries in this occurrence. Hence it is most unlikely that he would have spared the actual assailants and falsely implicated these appellants merely because he is otherwise ill disposed to H 741 742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A them. It is in evidence that despite conviction and sentence passed on the accused in K murder case they were released on bail as per orders of this Court during the pendency of the appeals filed by them. So the fact of conviction would not have quenched the revenging thirst towards the murderers of K. [744-D-H] B 2. It is a general handicap attached to all eye witnesses, if they fail to speak with precision their evidence would be assailed as vague and evasive; on the contrary if they speak to all events very well and correctly, their evidence becomes vulnerable to be attacked as tutored. Both ap- proaches are dogmatic and fraught with lack of pragmatism. The tes- C timony of a witness should be viewed from broad angles. It should not be weighed in golden scales, but with cogent standards. In a particular case an eye witness may be able to narrate the incident with all details without mistake if the occurrence bad made an imprint on the canvass of his mind in the sequence in which it occureed. He may be a person whose capacity D for absorption and retention of events is stronger than another person. It should be remembered that what he witnessed was not something that happens usually but a very exceptional one so far as he is concerned. If be reproduces it in the same sequence as it registered in bis mind the testimonay cannot be dubbed as artificial on that score alone. Here the trial court which had the opportunity to hear the narration of the incident E from those witnesses was impressed by the truth of the version. It is not fair to say now that the testimony of those witnesses deserved rejection for its precision. That apart, they would have spoken in the court as answers to different questions put to them by the chief examiner. It depends on the ability of the chief examiner in eliciting answers from the witness in the p correct order of events. Looking at the evidence from this angel this Court is not disposed to castigate the evidence of the eye witness in this case for speaking to the details corretly. [7 45-C-G] G CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 638 of 1995 Etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 30.1.90 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Crl. A No. 641-DB of 1987. U.R. Lalit and T.S. Arunachalam, L.K. Pandey
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.