HALLU AND OTHERS versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 652 · Decided: 19-03-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

652 
HALLU AND OTHERS 
I'. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
March 19, 1974 
(M. H. BEG ANO Y. V. CHANORACHUO, JJ.) 
Crimin.:U trial-Cast of rioting and murder-Correct' approach to eridenct-
FIR if should be givtn by one having persona/ know/edge of the incitknt. 
The appeUants, along with others, were charged with offences arising out of tbe-
murdCr of two persons. The trial court assessed the evidence on the followina 
principles, namely : (a) in rioti.n:g cases discrepancies arc bound to occur in the 
evidence but the duty of the court is to have regard to the broad probabilities of the 
A 
case; (b) in a factious village independent witnesses arc unwilling to come forward 
C 
and therefore the testimony of eye witnesses who may be interested in the doceased 
cannot be discarded merely for that reason, provided of course the presence of the 
witnesses is proved; and (c) the First Information Report docs not constitute su~ 
tantive evidence in the case and the mere circumstance that there arc certain 
omissions in it will not justify the case being disbelieved; and gave weighty fea:SODS 
fQ[ holding that the guilt of the acc'used was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 
In appeal, the High Court, while acquitting others, convicted the appellants under 
s. 302 read with s. 149 l.P.C. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court.-
D 
HELD : The Kigh Court ought not to have interfered with the order of acquittal 
ven if there were two possible views or the evidence. {6S4D-E} 
(a) The High Court wrongly refused to attach any importance to the circumstance 
that the names of the appellants were not mentioned in the very first report to the 
police and that a totally different group_ of persons were mentioned as the assailants. 
The High Court held that that report could not be treated as the First Infonnation 
Report under s. 154 Cr. P.C., bc: .. ause, the person who gave the Report had no per-
sonal knowledge of the incident. Buts. 154 docs not require lhat the Report must 
be given by a person who has personal knowledge of the incident reported. It only 
speaks of an inrormation relating to the commission of a cognizable offence given 
to ·an officer in-charge of a ~olice station. 
(654H-5SSC] 
(b) Another rer,ort, given by the Kotwal of the village, was treated by the Hi&h 
Court .as the First nformation Report. But this report wholly destroys the prosecu~ 
tion case, because, while the case of the prosecution was that the incident happened 
on: the afternoon of the previous day, the Kotwal stated in his report that the incident 
had taken place during the early hours of the day on which he gave the reponp 
(6SSE-GJ 
(c) In that Report also the names or the assailants were not mentioned. The 
inference arising from the fact that the name of an accused is not mentioned in the 
Fin:t Information Report must vary from case to case; but the High Court wholly 
ignored the fact that even the Kotwal of the village had not come to know ~he names 
or the assailants though 20 hours had elapsed after-the incident had taken place 
nccording to the prosecution. [655G-HJ 
(d) The Hi~h Court reruSed to attach any importance to the discrepancies between 
the medical evidence and the evidence of the eye witnesses that the deceased were 
t1ttacked with spears and axes, on the ground that the witnesses had not stated 
that 'the miscreants dealt axe blows from the sharp-side or used the spears as a 
piercing weapon'. The High Court explained the absence of incised er punctured 
wounds by observing, without any basis, that the accused might have used the 
blunt side. {656C-E] 
(e) It is generally not easy to find witnesses on whose testimony implicit reliance 
can be placed. It is al,vays advisable to test the evidence of witnesses on the anvil 
E 
F 
G 
H 
\ 
.A 
B 
c 
i 
_D 
·.E 
F 
.. 
--...... \-
• 
G 
• 
I 
/ 
H 
HALLU v. M.P. STATE (Chandrachud, ].) 
653 
•• : -;c , __ 
of objective circumstances of the case. But the High Court, in the present case, 
accepted the evidence of the two a11eged eye-witnesses as implicitly re1iablr v.·ith()ut 
so testing their evidence. They claimed to have seen the incident in the afterx:oon, 
but if the incident toOk place at night, the whole superstructure of the prosecution 
must fall. (656A,F-O) 
CiUMINAL APPELLATE JURISDI~ION : Criminat Aprea! No: 142 of 
1970. 
Appe~l by Special Leave from the Judgnlent and Order dated lhe 
27th March, 1970 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in 
Criminal Appeal No. 451 o

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