PRAMOD KUMAR versus STATE (GNCT) OF DELHI

Citation: [2013] 8 S.C.R. 323 · Decided: 01-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

, 
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 323 
PRAMOD KUMAR 
v. 
STATE (GNCT) OF DELHI 
(Criminal Appeal No. 562-563 of 2010) 
JULY 1, 2013 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 & 1861332 - Murder -
Prosecution version that country-made pistol was fired by the 
accused that caused injuries to the deceased - Tenability -
C 
Held: Tenable - Deceased and the accused were grappling 
with each other -
Country~made pistol seized from accused, 
which was in working order - Prosecution version that all of a 
sudden, the accused brought out his country-made pistol and 
fired from close range clearly established by evidence -
D 
Defence plea that while grappling, the position changed and 
bullet fired from the service revolver of PW-8 hit deceased not 
acceptable - No material to prove that gun shot was fired from 
the weapon of PW-8 - Evidently, the shot was fired from the 
country-made pistol seized from the custody of accused-
E 
appellant - Arms Act, 1959- ss.25 and 27. 
Evidence - Witness - Official witnesses - Testimony of 
police official - Appreciation - Held: Witnesses from the 
department of police cannot per se be said to be untruthful 
or unreliable - It would depend upon the veracity, credibility F 
and unimpeachabi/ity of their testimony - It cannot be said 
that the whole case should be thrown overboard because of 
non-examination of independent witness and reliance on the 
official witnesses - On facts, the official witnesses examined 
in support of the prosecution, stood embedded in their version G 
- Despite searching cross-examination, none of the witnesses 
gave way to any tergiversation, thus, no reason to discard 
them. 
323 
H. 
324 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
On the instructions of SI PW-9, the Head Constable 
PW-8 and Constable 'M' went to the house of 'C' where 
appellant, a proclaimed offender was hiding. The 
appellant was asked to surrender, but, he allegedly took 
out a knife and tried to assault but was caught hold of 
B 
by 'M' from the rear and both of them grappled with each 
other for some time. PW-8 thereafter snatched away the 
knife from the hands of appellant but, at that juncture, the 
appellant allegedly took out a country-made pistol (desi 
katta) and fired at 'M' and the bullet hit him in the stomach 
c area. 'M' was taken to the hospital where he died due to 
the bullet injury. 
The appellant was convicted by the courts below. He 
challenged his conviction before this Court, contending 
that 1) apart from the police officials, no other 
D 
independent witness had been examined; and that 2) the 
appellant was not responsible for causing injury on the 
deceased 'M'; on the contrary, it was PW-8 who intended 
to fire at the appellant when the deceased and the 
accused were grappling, but the bullet hit the deceased. 
E 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1. In the plea advanced under Section 313 
CrPC, it has been stated by the accused-appellant that 
as the public became angry due to the conduct of PW-8, 
they assaulted him and in order to save him, the 
investigating agency chose not to cite any independent 
witness though many witnesses were present who had 
seen the occurrence. There is no denial of the fact that 
the occurrence had taken place in the house of 'C' who 
G 
has turned hostile. His turning hostile does not affect the 
case of the prosecution. The witnesses from the 
department of police cannot per se be said to be 
untruthful or unreliable. It would depend upon the 
veracity, credibility and unimpeachability of their 
H 
testimony. There is no absolute command of law that the 
.. 
PRAMOD KUMAR v. STATE (GNCT) OF DELHI 
325 
police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their 
A 
testimony should always be treated with suspicion. 
Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to 
come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of 
the police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy, 
the court can definitely act upon the same. If, in the course 
B 
of scrutinising the evidence, the court finds the evidence 
of the police officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the 
court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely 
on the presumption that a witness from the department 
of police should be viewed with distrust. This is also c 
based on the principle that quality of the evidence weighs 
over the quantity of evidence. [Para 1 O] [322-C-D, F-G; 
333-A-B] 
1.2. It cannot be said that the whole case shou

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