BIRBAL NATH versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 85 · Decided: 30-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 85 : 2023 INSC 957
85
CASE DETAILS
BIRBAL NATH
v.
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS
(Criminal Appeal No. 1587 of 2008)
OCTOBER 30, 2023 
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in 
acquitting the accused for the major off ences u/ss. 302 and 307 IPC, and 
convicting them only for the off ences u/ss. 147, 148, 323, 324, 325/149 
and reducing their sentences to the period already undergone by them; and 
whether contractions in the two statements of the injured eye witness, one 
given to police u/s.161 Cr.PC., and the other given before the court, would 
be suffi  cient to discredit a witness.
Penal Code, 1870 – ss. 304 Part I, 308, 147, 148, 323, 324, 325/149 – 
Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – First Information Report 
by the complainant that seven armed men assaulted his uncle and 
aunt while they were working in their agricultural fi eld, causing them 
grievous injuries, resulting in the death of the uncle – Incident witnessed 
by several relatives who tried to intervene but failed – Conviction and 
sentence for the off ences u/ss. 302, 307, 323, 324, 325, 447, 147/148 read 
with s. 149 – However, the High Court acquitted them for the major 
off ences u/ss. 302 and 307, and were convicted only for the off ences u/
ss. 147, 148, 323, 324, 325/149 – Correctness:
Held: This case is of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, 
and not of murder – Injuries sustained by the assailants could not be proved 
in the trial, defence witness stood thoroughly discredited – There were 
contradictions in the two statements of an injured eye witness – These 
contradictions, however, are not enough to completely discredit this witness, 
she is a reliable witness – Some discrepancies invariably occur in such 
86  
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
cases taking into account her rural back ground – Reasons assigned for 
disbelieving the statement of the eye witness by the High Court not correct 
– Apart from this eye-witness, there were other eyewitnesses as well – Also 
recovery of the weapons and the blood-stained cloth of the accused – In 
view of these contradictions, benefi t of doubt given to the accused – As 
regards premeditated attack, the attack would come u/s.300 Exception 4, 
the attack not being premeditated, but was, “in a sudden fi ght in the heat of 
passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the off ender having taken undue 
advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner” – Thus, the approach of 
the High Court was not correct – Order of the High Court set aside and 
quashed – Conviction u/s. 302 converted to that of s. 304 Part I and that 
of s.307 to s. 308 and are sentenced accordingly – Case abates against the 
accused who expired. [Para 27-32]
Witness – Contractions in the two statements, one given to police 
u/s.161 Cr.PC., and the other given before the court – Credibility:
Held: Contractions in the two statements may or may not be suffi  cient 
to discredit a witness – s. 145/155 of the 1872 Act, have to be carefully 
applied in a given case – Purpose of the cross examination of a witness is 
to bring contradictions in the two statements of the witness – Rural setting, 
the degree of articulation of such a witness in a court of law are relevant 
considerations while evaluating the credibility of such witness – Lengthy 
cross-examination of witness may invariably result in contradictions – 
However, these contradictions not always suffi  cient to discredit a witness 
– Evidence Act, 1872 – ss. 145/155. [Paras 20 and 22]
Witness – Injured eye-witness – Evidentiary value:
Held: Statement of an injured eye-witness is an important piece of 
evidence which cannot be easily discarded by a Court – Minor discrepancies 
do not matter. [Para 26]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1963 – s. 161 – Statement given to 
police during investigation under – Evidentiary value:
Held: Cannot be read as an “evidence” – It has limited applicability 
in a court of law as prescribed u/s. 162 – No doubt statement given before 
police during investigation u/s. 161 are previous statements u/s 145 of the 
Evidence Act and thus can be used to cross examine a witness – But only 
87
for limited purpose, to “contradict” such witness – Even if the defence is 
successful in contradicting a witness, it would not always mean that the 
contradiction in the two statements would result in totally discrediting the 
witness. [Paras 18 and 19]
LISTS OF CITATIONS AND O

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