GOVINDARAJU@ GOVINDA versus STATE BY SRIRAMAPURAM P.S. & ANR.

Citation: [2012] 5 S.C.R. 67 · Decided: 15-03-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 5 S.C.R. 67 
GOVINDARAJU@ GOVINDA 
V. 
STATE BY SRIRAMAPURAM P.S. & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 984 of 2007) 
MARCH 15, 2012 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302134 - Appellant and other 
accused charged with offence uls. 302 rlw. 34 - Acquittal by 
the trial court - Leave to appeal filed before the High Court, 
granted only against the appellant - Conviction and sentence 
of appellant for commission of offence uls. 302 by the High 
Court - Justification of - Held: High Court did not bring out as 
A 
B 
c 
to how the trial court's judgment was perverse in law or in 
appreciation of evidence or whether the trial court's judgment D 
suffered from some erroneous approach and was based on 
conjectures and surmises in contradistinction to facts proved 
by the evidence on record - Testimony of sole eye witness-
police officer not reliable and worthy of credence - Eye-
witnesses, seizure witnesses and the witness to the recovery 
E 
of knife not supporting the prosecution case - Defect in the 
recovery - Non-examination of material witnesses as also 
persons from the forensic laboratory - Medical Evidence also 
not supporting the prosecution case - Thus, the case of the 
prosecution suffers from proven improbabilities, infirmities, 
contradictions - Appellant acquitted u/s. 302. 
F 
Evidence - Police officer as sole eye-witness - Evidentiary 
value of - Held: Testimony of police officer can be relied upon 
and form basis of conviction when such witness is reliable, 
trustworthy, cogent and duly corroborated by other witnesses 
G 
or admissible evidences - It cannot be discarded only on the 
ground that he is a police officer and may have some interest 
in success of the case - When his interest in the success of 
67 
H 
68 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 
A the case is motivated by overzealousness to an extent of his 
involving innocent people; no credibility can be attached to 
the statement of such witness - Absence of some independent 
witness of the locality does not in any way affect the 
creditworthiness of the prosecution case - On facts, the police 
B officer-sole eye witness was nearly 30 yards away from the 
place of incident and was on motor-cycle, equipped with a 
weapon - Police officer saw three accused chasing and then 
inflicting injuries upon the deceased - However, he was unable 
to stop the further stabbing and/or running away of the accused 
C - He did not mention the names of the accused in the FIR or 
to the Investigating Officer - He could not find the name of the 
third accused - The statement of police officer implicating the 
accused did not find any corroboration by other witnesses or 
evidences - Thus, suffers from improbabilities, not free of 
0 suspicion and lacked credence and reliability - Conviction of 
the appellant on basis of the statement of the police officer 
not sustainable. 
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Recoveries of weapons 
- Whether in conformity with the provisions of Section - Held: 
E Memos did not bear the signatures of the accused upon their 
disclosure statements - This is a defect in the recovery of 
weapons - Recovery witnesses turned hostile - Weapons of 
offence, recovered from the appellant did not contain any 
blood stain, whereas the knife recovered at the behest of the 
F co-accused was blood-stained - However, no steps taken by 
prosecution to prove whether it was human blood and of the 
same blood group as the deceased. 
Witness: 
G 
Witness - Material witness - Non-production - Effect of -
H 
Non-production of doctor (who performed the post mortem and 
examined the victim before he was declared dead) as well as 
of the Head Constable and the Constable who reached the 
site immediately upon the occurrence - Held: Creates a 
GOVINDARAJU@ GOVINDA v. STATE BY 
69 
SRIRAMAPURAM P.S. 
reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution - Court should 
A 
also draw adverse inference against the prosecution for not 
examining the material witnesses - Applicability of the 
principle of 'adverse inference' pre-supposes that withholding 
was of such material witnesses who could have stated 
precisely and cogently the events as they occurred. 
B 
Mat(1rial witness - Effect on prosecution case - Explained. 
Hostile witness - Effect on prosecution case -Explained. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 378 - Appeal C 
against acquittal - Scope of - Held: Appellate court has every 
power to re-appreciate, review and reconsider the ev

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