MRITUNJOY BISWAS versus PRANAB @ KUTI BISWAS AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2013] 7 S.C.R. 1105 · Decided: 08-08-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 7 S.C.R. 1105 
MRITUNJOY BISWAS 
v. 
PRANAB @ KUTI BISWAS AND ANOTHER 
(Criminal Appeal No. 378 of 2007) 
AUGUST 08, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
A 
B 
s.302 - Murder caused by gun-shot - Conviction by trial 
court - Acquittal by High Court - Held: Husband of deceased 
C 
has clearly deposed to have seen the accused firing at his 
wife -- Nephew of deceased (informant) has stood by his 
earlier version -~ They are the most natural witnesses and 
there is no reason that they would falsely implicate the 
accused - Besides, in the instant case, abscondence of the 
D 
accused gains significance - Non-examination of the treating 
doctor at Primary Health Centre does not affect the 
prosecution case -- When there is ample unimpeachable 
ocular evidence and the same has been corroborated by 
medical evidence, non-recovery of the weapon does not affect 
E 
prosecution case - Judgment of acquittal passed by High 
Court being wholly unsustainable, is set aside and conviction 
recorded by trial court, restored - Investigation - Evidence. 
APPE~L: 
Criminal appeal - Power of appellate court - Held: 
Appellate court has full power to review at large all the 
·evidence, and to reach the conclusion that upon the said 
evidence, the order of acquittal should be reversed. 
EVIDENCE: 
Appreciation of evidence - Minor contradictions and 
inconsistencies - High Court setting aside the conviction and 
acquitting the ac.cused by referring_ to some discrepancies -
1105 
F 
G 
H 
1106 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 7 S.C.R. 
A Held: Every omission cannot take place of a material 
omission and, therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies 
or insignificant embellishments not affecting the core of the 
case, should not be taken to be a ground to reject the 
prosecution evidence - While appreciating the evidence of 
B a witness, the approach must be as to whether the evidence 
of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth 
- High Court in its appreciation of evidence has laid undue 
emphasis on some contradictions which do not affect the 
prosecution case - It has read the evidence not as a whole 
c but in utter fragmentation and appreciated the same in total 
out of context - Testimonies of prosecution witnesses are 
credible and there is no reason to treat their testimony as 
untrustworthy- Penal Code, 1860 - s.302. 
D 
FIR: 
Non-mentioning name of accused in FIR -
Held: 
Evidence shows that accused was named at earliest 
opportunity - There is nothing on record to suggest that he 
was falsely implicated by way of an afterthought. 
E 
Respondent no. 1 was prosecuted on the allegation 
that on 20.4.2001, at about 8.25 p.m. he fired at the wife 
of PW-8, who succumbed to her injuries on the following 
day. The trial court convicted and sentenced him to life 
imprisonment u/s 302 IPC. However, on appeal, the High 
F Court acquitted the accused giving him benefit of doubt. 
Aggrieved, the complainant filed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The appellate court has full power to review 
at large all the evidence and to reach the conclusion that 
G upon the said evidence, the order of acquittal should be 
reversed. [para 12] (1117-D-E] 
Jadunath Singh v. State of U.P. (1971) 3 SCC 577, 
Surajpal Singh v. State 1952 SCR 193 =1952 AIR 52; Sanwat 
H Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1961 SCR 120 = 1961 AIR 715; 
MRITUNJOY BISWAS v. PRANAB @ KUTI BISWAS 1107 
Damodarprasad Chandrikaprasad v. State of Maharashtra A 
1972 (2) SCR 622 = 1972 (1) SCC 107, State of Bombay v. 
Rusi Mistry AIR 1960 SC 391; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. 
State of Maharashtra 1974 (1) SCR 489 = 1973 (2) SCC 793, 
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka 2007(2) SCR 630 = 2007 
(4) SCC 415; S. Ganesan v. Rama Raghuraman 2011 
B 
(1) SCR 27 = 2011 (2) SCC 83, Jugendra Singh v. State of 
Uttar Pradesh 2012 (6) SCR 193 = 2012 (6 ) SCC 297; and 
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dal Singh and Ors. 2013 (7) 
SCALE 513 - referred to. 
Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor AIR 1934 PC 227, Nur C 
Mohammad v. Emperor AIR 1945 PC 151- referred to. 
2.1. The High Court has taken serious exception to 
the non-mentioning of the name of the accused in the FIR. 
PW-8, the husband of the deceased had screamed about 
the gun-shot and PW-1 (informant) had rushed to his 
D 
house and thereafter immediately proceeded to get a 
vehicle to take the victim to a hospital. In such a situation, 
to expect that he should have heard PW-8 mentioning the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.