JAI KARAN AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 995 · Decided: 28-10-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

JAi KARAN AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
OCTOBER 28, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
.. ,, 
~~:JO,. 
-~T:riminal Trial. 
Appreciation of evidence-Eye witnesses-Held Evidence of interested 
A 
B 
or related witness requires evaluation with caution and does not warrant C 
mechanical rejection-Minor variations do not affect testimony which is 
otherwise credible-Medical Evidence-Held, testimony of eye-witnesses 
should not be discarded on alleged inconsistency with medical evidence 
unless medical evidence completely rules out all possibilities of injuries 
taking place as alleged by eye witnesses-Indian Penal Code, 1860- D 
Sections 148, 149, 302 & 323. 
Prosecution alleged that accused-appellants V, J and B armed 
with guns alongwith two unknown assailants armed with a kanta and 
banka attacked S in his house as accused and S were on inimical terms. 
Accused V fired at S as a result of which S fell down. Informant-PW- E 
1 who is son of S, PW-2, PW-3 and R, servant of S, were present in 
the house and when they rushed to rescue S, J fired at S and assaulted 
PW-2 with barrel of gun while B fired at Rand the unknown assailants 
assaulted S with kanta and banka. After murdering S and R and 
inuring PW-2, accused and the two unknown persons ran away. PW- F 
l lodged FIR and PW-2 and PW-3 were stated to be eye-witnesses while 
accused also lodged information alleging that S and his relatives had 
assaulted them. Trial court convicted accused-appellants under Sections 
148, 302 and/or 302 read with 149, and 323 read with 149 of the Indian 
Penal Code, 1860 and awarded them life sentence but acquitted two 
other persons. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, accused, G 
against their conviction, and State against acquittal preferred appeals 
which were dismissed by the High Court by a common judgment. 
Hence the present appeal by the accused persons. 
Appellants contended that there was doubt about PW-2 being H 
995 
996 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A injured in the incident as claimed; that time of injury of PW-2 as stated 
by doctor did not fit in with alleged time of occurrence; that there was 
doubt about PW2's presence at place of occurrence; that statement of 
injured witness PW-2, w~s, recorded after a day from date of occurrence 
which casts doubt on authenticity of his evidence as there was time to 
B make improvements; and that witnesses made improvements in Court 
to bring medical evidence in line with ocular evidence which rendered 
prosecution case weak. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
C 
HELD : 1. The High Court has found the evidence of PW-2 to 
be cogent, credible and trustworthy. His presence at the place of 
incident was explained and his evidence cannot be thrown out as 
unreliable or tainted, merely because in some cases he was a co-accused 
with the deceased. This circums'tance would not warrant mechanical 
D rejection of his testimony. Evaluation with caution was needed, which 
has been done. The manr..er of assaults as described by' him is also 
corroborated by medical evidence. The plea that imprO.\fements were 
made to bring the ocular evidence in line with the medical evidence is 
clearly without substance. Whatever was stated was by way of a 
clarification and certainty cannot be termed to be an improvement. 
E Therefore, the evidence of PW-2 alone was sufficient to fasten guilt on 
the accused appellants. [1001-B, E-G] 
2. The First Information Report was lodged with promptitude. 
Merely because PW2 was examined after some time, the reason thereof 
F has been clearly explained by the investigating officer who stated that 
after the information was lodged by PWI at the police station he 
interrogated him and thereafter left for the place of incident which he 
reached at 8.45 p.m. [1001-G-H, 1002-A] 
3. So far as time of injury on PW2 is concerned the opinion of 
G PW4 (doctor) is clearly hypothetical. He himself has stated that there 
can be a margin of 2-3 hours. That being so, credible evidence of 
eyewitnesses does not become tainted. [1002-A] 
4. Though evidence of PWI does not specifically indicate the 
H injury on PW2 that is but natural. Before a young person two murders 
JAi KARAN v. STATE [PASAYAT, J.) 
997 
were committed and it is quite natural to create a sense of shock and A 
as such minor variations in his evidence do not affect his testimony 
which is otherwise credible. [1002-B-C] 
5. Unless the medical evidence in its turn goes so far tha

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