JAGDISH AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2019] 11 S.C.R. 22 · Decided: 06-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
22
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
JAGDISH AND ANOTHER
v.
THE STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1864 of  2019)
AUGUST 06, 2009
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 302, 149 and 148  – Involvement of  13 accused in the
offence including two juveniles  – Conviction of three accused by
trial court – High Court acquitted one of the accused while upholding
the conviction of the two accused (appellants) – Appeal to Supreme
Court  – Held: In view of the previous animosity between the parties
and the relationship between sole eye-witness (PW1) and the
deceased false implication cannot be ruled out – Susceptibility of
number and nature of injuries are improbable in the facts of the
case  – High Court has wrongly considered PW-8 to be an eye-
witness  – In the FIR the eye-witness (PW1) had made generalized
allegations by all the 13 accused, while in her court statement she
was more specific with regard to nature of assault by each accused
– While the sole eye-witness (PW1) has been severely doubted while
acquitting other accused, she cannot be relied on in a case of mob
assault by 13 persons at night – Therefore, the appellants-accused
are acquitted.
Witness:
Solitary eye-witness  – Evidentiary value – Held: Conviction
on the basis of solitary eye-witness is sustainable, if there is reliable
evidence cogent and convincing alongwith surrounding
circumstances – Evidence of such witness calls for heightened
scrutiny.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. PW-8 and PW-1 are husband and wife holding
arms licence in their individual names. They are stated to have
been accompanied to the place of occurrence by the sister of
PW-8 and one ‘P’ who was also an arms licensee.  Surprisingly,
the latter two have been given up by the prosecution and have
22
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 22
2009)
2019
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
23
not been examined.  All four are stated to have moved away from
the place of assault out of fear, as claimed.  If three of them were
possessed of weapons, there has to be an explanation why they
did not act in self defence when the assault is alleged by lathis,
gandasi and guns.  It is also difficult to accept that her husband
PW-8 and ‘P’ continued to hide in fear while PW-1 accompanied
by her sister-in-law alone shortly returned to the place of
occurrence to check on the deceased. An additional fact which is
not only improbable but highly unnatural according to normal
societal rural customs and mores is that PW-1 accompanied by
her sister-in-law alone went to the police station at 3.00 A.M, a
kilometer away, to lodge the F.I.R. while her husband and ‘P’
who was staying with them remained at home.  [Para 5] [26-E-G]
2. In the F.I.R. PW-1 made generalized allegations of assault
by all the 13 accused who are stated to have surrounded the
deceased. But her court statement was more specific with regard
to the nature of assault made by each of the accused.  The two
appellants were armed with lathis by which an incised wound could
not have been caused.  In any event, the number of injuries on
the deceased leaves the Court satisfied that it was the result of a
mob assault and not an assault by the two appellants alone. The
susceptibility of eleven injuries, including incised wounds, by two
accused is considered highly improbable. [Paras 6, 9]
[26-H; 27-A-C; 28-C]
3. The High Court has committed an error of record by
considering PW-8 to be an eye-witness without any discussion
when his presence at the time of occurrence has been disbelieved
by the Trial Court. With regard to PW-1, the Trial Court has itself
observed that her deposition “does not contain the entire truth
and it makes the court to sit up and to find out the kernel out of
the chaff”. This observation assumes significance in view of the
acquittal of the remaining accused by the Trial Court itself,
excluding the juveniles. [Para 7] [27-D]
4. In the mob assault by 13 persons who had surrounded
the deceased at night, PW-1 was the sole eye-witness.  Even if a
light was burning, some of the assaulters undoubtedly must have
had their back to PW-1 making identification improbable if not
impossible. The witness has been severely doubted both by the
JAGDISH AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF HARYANA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
24
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
trail court and the High Court to grant acquittal to the other
accused. Conviction on the basis of a solitary eye-witness is
undoubtedly sustainable if there is reliable evidence cogent and
conv

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