LexLEELA RAM (D) THROUGH DULI CHAND versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
_, LEELA RAM (D) THROUGH DULi CHAND A v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. OCTOBER 6, 1999 [K.T. THOMAS AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.) B Indian Penal Code, 1860-S.302-Murder---Eye- witnesses-Apprecia- tion of evidence--Conviction and sentence by Trial Court-On appeal, High Court. acquitting the accused holding that there were discrepancies in the evidence of eye-witnesses regarding number of shots fired by 'accused:-Validity C of-Held, minor embellishment and trivial discrepancies do not render the. evidence of eye-witnesses un-believable-Whether there was one shot or two shots was immaterial in assessing the culpability of the accused-High Court not justified in acquitting the accused relying upon minor contradictions be- tween the witnesses. • Evidence Act, 1872 : Witnesses-Appreciation of evidence--Conduct of witnesses-Held, dif- ferent witnesses react differently and there cannot be any set pattern or unifonn rule of human reaction-Thus, a piece of evidence cannot be dis- D carded on the ground that it was not failing within a set pattern. E Witnesses-Interested witnesse~videntiary value of-Murder-Tes- timony of son and brother-in-law of deceased that accused fired shots--Held, does notloses its efficacy or evidentiary value as interested witnesses unless something is brought on record to discredit the creditworthiness of the wit- nesses. S-45--Appreciation of evidence--Ballistic expert's report-Evidentiary value of-Held, a valuable material of evidence which can not be brushed aside. Criminal Trial : Investigation-lmgularity or illegality-Effect of F G Accused was prosecuted for an offence under S.302 of the Indian Penal Code and S. 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case was that accused wanted to dig a khal forcibly through the field of 'M' which was H 435 436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A objected to. For resolving the dispute amicably, a team consisting of PWs 1, 2, 4 and 'R' alongwith 'M' and few other proceeded towards the field of the accused. While on their way, accused came out from the field with a double barrel gun and on seeing 'M' raised a Lalkara ''pani na dene ka maza chakhata hun". He then fired two shots at 'M' and ran away. FIR was lodged B by'L', son of'M'. Post-mortem was conducted by PW3. Police recovered two empty cartridges from the place of occurrence. Subsequently, accused was arrested and from his possession only DBBL gun alongwith 3 Iive cartridges were recovered. The empty cartridges alongwith the gun were sent to Ballis- tic expert, who gave a report that the said cartridges matched with the injury. Trial Court relying upon the testimony of eye-witnesses convicted C the accused and sentenced him to life imprisonment. However, on appeal, High Court acquitted the accused holding that the eye-witnesses account regarding the number of shots fired by accused stands contradicted by medical evidence. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal and setting aside th~ order of High Court the D Court HELD : 1.1. Testimony of witnesses before the Trial Court, without , any major contradiction unmistakably point to the guilt of the accused and the appreciation of evidence by the High Court is wholly unwarranted, E improper and unimaginative. The High Court was not justified in acquit- ting the accused relying upon some minor contradictions between the wit- nesses. [448-H-499-A] 1.2. The High Court is within its jurisdiction being the first appellate F court to re-appraise the evidence, but the discrepancies found in the ocular account of two witnesses unless they are so vital, cannot affect the credibility of the evidence of the witnesses. There is bound to be some discrepancy _ between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Incidentally, corrobora- G tion of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason there- for should not render the evidence of eye-witnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness-If H this element is satisfied, they ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the ' -- LEELA RAM v. STATE 437 438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.