LexPRATAP SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'- PRA TAP SINGH AND ANR. A v. STA TE OF MADHYA PRADESH NOVEMBER 23, 2005 [S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] B Evidence: Minor-Witness-Contradiction in statement-Effect of-Minor stating that he went directly to his father and narrated the incident to him, whereas C according to another witness, minor came to him first and then went to his father-Acquittal by Trial Court on the ground that the evidence of minor appeared doubtful-Correctness of-Held: Trial Court did not err in holding that suspicion had arisen as regards the correctness of statement made by minor and he might have been tutored D Non-examination of eye witness-Effect of Non-examination of seizure witness-Effect of-Held: Seizure of material objects cannot be said to have been proved Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 161: Statement recorded under Section 161-Notfiled along with the charge- sheet-Held, fatal ta the prosecution. E Investigation-Duty of Investigating Officer-Held: If during F investigation, Investigating Officer f}Otices that two other witnesses had also witnessed the occurrence then it is _his duty to record evidence of such witness .. Prosecution case was that the de~eased was assaulted by app~Jlants with Lathi and Bhala. PW.2 witnessed the occurrence from a distance of about 50 G hands. He went up on a mound and saw the incident therefrom and when the Appellants ran towards him, he ran towards the village and informed about the incident to PW.1. PW.l in his statement contended that he, upon being informed about the said incident by PW.2 went to the place of occurrence and saw deceased lying in an injured condition. Deceased was taken to the hospital 439 H 440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A where he was declared dead. PW.1 lodged FIR and investigation was taken up by PW. 7. He prepared a site plan. During investigation, another site plan was prepared by the Patwari. In both the site plans places wherefrom two persons, namely Shivraj Singh and Motiram were said to have witnessed the occurrence as eye witnesses were shown. Their statements were recorded under Section B 161 CrPC but same was neither filed along with the charge sheet nor were they examined. Sessions Judge ordered acquittal on the ground that the evidence of PW. 2 appeared doubtful as the existence of mound had not been shown in the site plan prepared either by PW. 7 or by the Patwari; Shivrajsingh and Motiram C who were considered to be the real eye witnesses and whose statements had been recorded under Section 161 CrPC by the Investigating Officer were not examined as witnesses in Court and as the seizure witnesses have not been examined, the seizure of the material objects cannot be said to have been proved. D On appeal, High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal on the ground E that Sess!ons Judge was not correct in drawing adverse inference for non- examination of the two eye-witnesses. The High Court also made adverse comments in respect of the manner in which the investigation has been conducted by the Investigating Officer holding thatthe officer cannot escape his liability by not filing the documents in Court on account of inadvertence. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The High Court, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, was not justified in reversing the Judgment of acquittal passed by the F Sessions Judge. It is not in dispute that PW. 2 was the only eye witness. He was a minor. His evidence required a closer scrutiny. He contradicted himself on material particulars. He did not make any statement before the police that he had seen the occurrence from a· mound. Existence of the mound was very vital in the sense that if his statement before the Court to the effect that the deceased, at the time of his assault, remained sitting, a question might have G arisen that he was not in a position to witness.the entire occurrence in deta~I from a distance. The distance between the place of occurrence and the place where he was collecting fodder, according to the Investigating Officer, was 105 feet. Furthermore, if upon noticing appellants proceeding towards the deceased with Barchhi and Lathi in their hands he started running towards the place of occurrence, it is difficult to understand as to how he could climb H PRATAPSINGHv. STATEOFMADHYAPRADESH 441 .. upon a mound and see the entire occurrence. If he was in a position to see the A entire occurrence ei
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.