LexHIMACHAL PRADESH ADMINISTRATION versus SHRI OM PRAKASH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I •, A B c D HIMACHAL PRADESH ADMINISTRATION v. SURI OM PRAKASH December 7, 1971 765 [P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND D. G. PALEKA!l, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 136-Criminal appeal against ac- quittal-Scope of interference by Supreme Court. Criminal trial-Circumstantial evidence-Approach by Court. Evidence &ct (! of 1872), s. 21-Weight of evidence re : recovery- Panch witnesses-If should b~ different for each recovery. Criminal Procedure Code (Act 5 of 1898). s. 510-Admissibillty and weight of reporl of finger print expert. The accused was charged with murder by stabbing, ll;nd tha ev!den~e against him was circumstantial. It consisted of : (a) evidence of 1ll-w1ll against the deceased furnishing a motive (b) evidence that he was last seen in the company of the deceased, ( c) evidence furnished by finger prints, that he was present in the room of the deceased at or about t~e time of the murder, ( d) evidence that he was subsequently found '!' possession of articles which had incriminating blood strains. and (e) evi- dence that he had hidden a dagger with bloodstains thereon, and certain other articles, which were discovered on information furnished by him. The trial court convicted him but the High Court set aside the convic- tion on the ground that the \\ritnesses \vere not independent or impartial. Allowin~ the appeal to this Court, E HELD : (I) In an appeal against acquittal by special leave under Art. !36, this Court has pawer to interfere with the findings of fact, no distinction being made between iudgments of acquittal and conviction though in tho> case of acquittals, it will not ordinarily interfere with the appreciation of evidence or findings .of fact unless ~he High Court actec1 perverselv or otherwise improperly, [772 B-D] Slate of Madras v. Vaidyanatha Iyer, [1958] S.C.R. 580. 587. referred F to. G H (2) In the case of circumstantial evidence if the links in the chain are complete leading to the undoubted conclusion that the accused alone could have committed the offence then it can be accepted. In aopreciating suc1' evidence the prime duty of a court is to •msure that the evidence is legally admissible, that the witnesses are credible and that they have no interest or motive in implicating the accused. Since it js difficult to expect a scienti- fic or mathematical exactitude while dealing \vith such evidence corrobora~ tion is sou~ht w)lerever possible. If there is any reasonable doubt the accused is gi~-en the benefit of such doubt The doubt should be reason- able and not a remote po~ibilitv in favour of the accused. "That is, the greatest possible care should be taken by the court in convicting an accuse<!. who is presumed to be innooent till the contrary is clearh· established, and the burden of so establishing is always on the p'rosecution. [772 C-E, G; 773 E-H; 774 C] ( 3) (a) Whi.le considering the evidence relating to thi~ recovery under s. 27 of. the .Evidence Act the court will have to exercise that caution and care which 1s nece~sarv to lend assurance that the information furnished by the accused leadmg to the discovery of a fact is credible. [776 DJ 766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1972] 2 S.C.R. In the. pr~sent case, the various panchnamas of seizure prepared by the Investi&atin& Officer could not be assailed on the &round that the wit- nesses who witnes•ed the recoveries were connected with the deceaseil or with his business, and that therefore, they were not independent or im- partial witnesses. [775 H; 776 G] (b) The evidence relating to recoveries is not similar to that contem- plated under s. 103, Cr. P.C. It cannot be laid down as a matter of Jaw A or practice that where recoveries had to be effected from different places ,B. on the information furnished bv an accused different sets of persons should be called to witness them. [777 B-C] On the contrary, in the present case, the witnesses who worked with the deceased were pro,..r persons to witness the recoveries as thev could identify the things which were missing. [777 C-D] ( 4) The report of the Director of the Finger Print Bureau regardine c the finger prints can be used as evidence under s. 510 Cr. P .C., without examining the 11erson making the report, because identification of finger prints has developed into an exact science. As long as the report shows that the opinion was based on relevant observations that opinion can be accepted. [783 A-El In the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.