HARDEEP versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 556 · Decided: 16-08-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
HARDEEP 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. 
AUGUST 16, 2002 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302 and 304 Part-1-Murder-
Conviction-Trial Court convicting accused under Section 304 Part-I but 
C acquitting his father holding that he was falsely implicated-High Court 
upholding conviction of accused but converting it to one under Section 302 
and maintaining acquittal of his father-On appeal held, witness to motive 
of dispute, eye witnesses to murder all related inter se and to deceased-
Discrepancy regarding time of occurrence of incident and presence of 
witnesses at the time of assault-False implication of the father subsequently 
D acquitted by High Court-Hence conviction of accused set aside-Evidence 
Act, 1872-Sections 3 and 8. 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 3: 
Evidence-Appreciation of-Not in a mechanical way-If accused 
E person implicated by eye-witness is acquitted, it is not necessary that others 
must also be acquitted-Similarly if an eye-witness who alleges to have seen 
the occurrence and if there is no contradiction in his statement reliance 
thereon cannot mechanically be placed-It depends on other facts and 
circumstances of the case also like broad features of prosecution story, 
probabilities and normal course of human conduct. 
F 
Evidence-Discrepancies and contradictions-To what extent fatal to 
the prosecution case-Discussed. 
Criminal Trial: 
G 
Prosecution case-If all links and limbs weak-They cannot make out 
a strong case by putting them together. 
According to the prosecution, dispute arose between appellant-accused 
and one R since appellant did not pay back the amount borrowed from him. R 
was murdered few days later. Appellant and his son were accused of murdering 
H R. It was alleged that father of appellant caught hold of deceased and his son 
556 
HARDEEP v. ST ATE OF HAR Y ANA 
557 
stabbed on the chest of R resulting in his death. Demand of return of the loan A 
amount was stated to be the motive, though appellant's father was not party to 
the transaction. Deceased's nephew was the only witness as regards the 
motive. All other prosecution witnesses claiming to be eye-witness to the 
murder were related inter se and to deceased. There was discrepancy in the 
time of occurrence of incident. Also the presence of witnesses at the time of B 
assault was doubted. Trial Court relying on the prosecution case and the 
testimony of the eye-witnesses, convicted appellant under Section 304 Part I 
IPC but acquitted his father on the ground that he was falsely implicated. High 
Court upheld the conviction of appellant but converted the offence to one under 
Section 302 IPC and maintained the acquittal of his father. Hence the present 
appeals. Appellant contended that evidence of the same witnesses who had C 
equally implicated the appellant's father could not be basis of conviction of 
appellant once it was found that his father was falsely implicated in the case. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. In criminal cases Court cannot proceed to consider evidence D 
of prosecution witnesses in a mechanical way. The broad features of 
prosecution case, probabilities and normal course of human conduct of a 
prudent person are some of the factors which are always kept in mind while 
evaluating the merit of a case. No fixed formula can be adopted that in case 
some of the accused persons implicated by the eye-witnesses have been 
acquitted, others must also be necessarily acquitted nor that whatever be the E 
facts and circumstances of the case but in case an eye-witness states to have 
seen the occurrence without contradictions in his own statement, must always 
be believed and acted upon. More particularly, where circumstances warrant 
application of due care and caution in appreciating the statements of the 
witnesses as has been observed by the Trial Court itself coupled with the fact p 
that all witnesses are related inter se and to the deceased. 
[563-G-H; 564-A-B) 
2.1. Every contradiction or discrepancy may not IH!cessarily be fatal to 
the prosecution case but it all depends on the facts and circumstances of the 
case. Such discrepancies and contradictions have to be seen in the background G 
of probabilities of the prosecution story and veracity of prosecution witnesses. 
In case evidence of prosecution witnesses is above board and unimpeachable 
and inspires confidence, in that event discrepancies and contradictions here 
and there may have no value at a

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