LexCHANDRA MOHAN TIWARI AND ANR. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
:
CHANDRA MOHAN TIW ARI AND ANR.
A
v.
~ -· -{
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
1
JANUARY 22, 1992
[S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA
B
REDDY, JJ.]
Code qfCriminal Procedure. 1973: Section 379-Scope of
~-
Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) c
Act, 1970: $ection 2~<Jcope of
Constitution of India, I 950: Article l 34~<Jcope o(
-ft
Criminal Trial--,-Accused--Acquitta/ by Trial Court-Reversal of ac-
quittal by High Court and imposition of life sentence~1cope of right of
appeal by the accused~<Jcope of inte1.fere11ce hy Supreme Court in such
D
appeals.
Criminal Trial-Murder-Motive-When motive is equally balanced
the Court should look to surrounding circu111stu11ces to/ind out the truth.
~
E
Criminal Trial-Related witnesses-Re/iahility of-Murder inside
the house at the dead end 0(night-It isfittile to expect the prosecution to
produce iiulependent omsiclers as witness-Parents of the deceased are
prohahle and nalllral witnesses-He/cl though parents are interested wit-
nesses yet their evidence cannot he rejected simply on the_ ground that
they are interested witnesses--lnterested ivitnesses are not necessarily
.fal.<e tl'itnesses.
F
The appellants were alleged to have kidnapped, wrongfully
-~
confined and raped S, the daughter of PWs S and 6. They were
~
prosecuted for offences punishable under sections 363, 366 and 376
of the Indian Penal Code. S was examined before the Magistrate
G
where she stated that because of the threat given by the appellants
and as instructed by them she lodged a false report at the police
station implicating some other persons, whereas infact she was kid-
napped, wrongfully confined and raped hy the appellants. The Mag-
istrate, discharged the first appellant, and committed the second
~
appellant alone to take his trial. On a revision preferred against the
H
order of discharge of the first appellant both the appellants were
-r...
313
A
B
c
E
F
314
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1992] I S.C.R.
put up for trial before the third Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal.
During the said trial both appellants were on bail. The case was
fixed for 21.8.1972 on which date the victim S was to be examined
as a prosecution witness. While the matter stood thus S lodged a
report at the Police Station complaining that the second appellant
had forcibly entered into the backyard of her house, but took to his
heels when she raised a hue and cry.
However, it was alleged that on the night of 20.8.72, i.e. imme-
diately before the day when the case was fixed and victim S was to
be examined as a prosecution witness, the first appellant armed
with a pistol and the second appellant with a 'farsa' entered into the
house of S and the first appellant fired a shot causing instantaneous
death of S The appellants were prosecuted for murder. The Sessions
Judge acquitted both the appellants. The State preferred an appeal
before the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal, set
aside the acquittal order and convicted the first appellant under
Section 302 and the second appellant under section 302, read with
Section 34 !PC and sentenced e.ach of them to undergo imprison-
ment for life.
The appellants preferred an appeal to this Court under section
379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 2 (a) of the
Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Act, 1970 and it was contended on their behalf (i) that the High
Court erred in reviewing the evidence and reversing the order of
acquittal; (ii) that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive of
the crime; (iii) the victim's parents were inimical towards the ap-
pellants and their evidence cannot be relied upon because they were
interested witnesses.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
HELD : 1. The Trial Court was wrong in jettisoning the entire
evidence in a very scanty and unsatisfactory manner with unsound
G
reasoning. Whilst the Trial Court's conclusion was arrived at by
abjuring the unimpeachable and reliable evidence of parents of the
deceased on speculative reasons and unreasonable grounds, the con-
trary conclusion of the High Court based on the evolution of the
evidence does not suffer from any illegality or manifest error or
I
:j
···~ II
perversity nor is it erroneous. Fur !her, independent analysis of the
A-·
H
evidence hy this Court shows that there arc absolutely no substan-
C.M. T!WAR! v.STATE
315
" -<
tial and compelling reasons to brusExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.