CHHOTANNEY & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 756 · Decided: 18-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

>;I.
f•
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 756 
A 
CHHOTANNEY & ORS. 
·~ 
V. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. 
. 
i .. 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 441 OF 2002 
:· 
FEBRUARY 18, 2009 
I 
B 
~.,
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, 
JJ.] 
"" 
Evidence Act, 1872 : 
.. 
c 
s. 3 - Testimony of eye witness - Evidentiary value of -
Held: When eye witnesses account is found credible and 
trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities 
is not accepted as conclusive - Eye witnesses account 
requires careful independent assessment - On facts, there 
D was no conflict between ocular evidence and medical evidence 
- Thus, conviction of main accused uls. 302 rlw s. 201 and 
~ 
s. 148 and co-accused uls. 302 rlw s. 149 and s. 147 /PC by 
... 
courts below justified. 
Criminal Law - Evidence - Standard of proof - Degree 
E of proof and probability - Measurement of - Explained. 
i 
t 
Prosecution case was that on account of previous 
enmity appellant no. 1 and 4 chopped the head of 
deceased on exhortation of appellant no. 2. Two 
). 
prosecution witnesses were the eye witness to the 
)oy 
.' 
F .incident of murder. The courts below convicted appellant 
, 
no. 1 and 4 u/s. 302 r/w s. 201 and 148 and appellant no. 2 
u/s. 302 r/w s. 149 and 147 IPC. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1. The plea that the medical evidence is at 
variance with ocular evidence, it would be erroneous to 
~ 
accord undue primacy to the hypothetical· answers of 
,. 
medical witnesses to exclude the eye-witnesses' account 
which had to be tested independently and not treated as 
H 
756 
~·· 
.. 
CHHOTANNEY & ORS.V. STATE OF 
757 
UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. 
the "variable" keeping the medical evidence as the A 
"constant". There was no conflict between the ocular 
evidence and the medical evidence. [Paras 6 and 10] [ 762-
C; 764-C] 
2.1 Where the eye-witnesses' account is found 
credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to B 
alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. 
Witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice. Hence the 
importance and primacy of the quality of the trial process. 
Eye witnesses' account would require a careful 
independent assessment and evaluation for their C 
credibility which should not be adversely prejudged 
making any other evidence, including medical evidence, 
as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. 
Evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and 
the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the D 
account of other witnesses held to be credit-worthy; 
consistency with the undisputed facts; the 'credit' of 
witnesses; their performance in the witness-box; their 
power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such 
evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a E 
cumulative evaluation. [Para 7] [ 762-D] 
2.2 A person has, no doubt, a profound right not to 
be convicted of an offence which is not established by 
the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. 
Though this standard is a higher standard, there is, F 
however, no absolute standard. What degree of 
probability amounts to 'proof' is an exercise particular to 
each case. [Para 8] [ 762-G] 
"The Mathematics of Proof II": Glanville Williams: 
Criminal Law Review, 1979, by Sweet and Maxwell, p. 340 (342) G 
- referred to. 
2.3 Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free 
from a zest for- abstract speculation. Law cannot afford 
any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable 
doubt, it must be free from an over emotional response. H 
758 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Doubts. must be actual and substantial doubts as to the 
guilt of the accused persons arising from the evidence, 
or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague 
apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, 
trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based 
B 
upon reason and commonsense. It must grow out of the 
evidence in the case. [Para 9] [ 763-E] 
2.4 The concepts of probability, and the degrees of 
it, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be 
mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units 
C constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an 
unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the 
degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic 
probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust 
common sense and, ultimately, on the trained intuitions 
D of the judge. While the protection given by t

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