PREM NARAIN AND ANR. versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 844 · Decided: 29-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PREM NARAIN AND ANR. 
v. 
THE ST A TE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
NOVEMBER 29, 2006 
B 
(S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-s.304-II rlw 34-Conviction under, based on 
testimony of two eye-witnesses-Challenge to-Held: In view of contradictions 
C and inconsistencies in depositions of the eye-witnesses, it is not possible to 
arrive at a definite finding against Appellants-accused-Benefit of dou.bt given 
to them-Conviction accordingly set aside. 
In a murder case, the Trial Court as well as the High Court convicted 
Appellants under Section 304-11 r/w Section 34, IPC after placing reliance 
D upon testimony of the two eye witnesses, PW-1 and PW-3. 
E 
The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is 
whether due to the contradictions and inconsistencies in depositions of the 
two eyewitnesses PWl and PW3, benefit of doubt should be given to the· 
Appellants and hence their conviction set aside. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. PW-1 in her evidence before the Court gave a completely 
different picture than disclosed in the First Information Report. The time 
F and place of incident was also changed. According to' her before the Court, 
at about 10 a.m. Peeta (not Prem Narain and Parmeshwar) came to her 
house and called her husband saying that they want to go to Barelly. 
Whereas according to the First Information Report, when the deceased 
started for going to Barelly after taking his breakfast, he was accosted in 
the lane by the persons named as accused in the First Information Report; 
G in her statement before the Court she stated Peeta Ram asked her husband 
to come immediately whereupon Chunni Lal caught hold hand of her 
husband and dragged him to his house and bolted the outer door. The 
scene of occurrence thus has changed from lane to the house of Chunni 
Lal. In her statement before the Court she disclosed that the incident took 
H 
844 
.
PREM NARAIN"= THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
845 
place inside the house of Chunni Lal where all the six accused persons were A 
present and they had been assaulting her husband but it was for the first time 
in her evidence she stated that her son was on her lap and despite the same 
she was assaulted on her stomach but no injury was found. (847-C, D, Fl 
1.2. The defence has been able to bring on record vital omissions and 
contradictions in her statement made before the Police and her statement B 
before the Court. In view of the contradictions and inconsistencies in the 
depositions of PW.1, the Trial Court as also the High Court committed a 
manifest error in relying upon her testimony as an eye witness. 
(847-G-H; 848-AJ 
2.1. PW.3 in his evidence categorically stated that the investigating C 
officer had called him to the Police Station once five days after the incident 
and the second time 10-11 days after the incident. He was called for the third 
time lYz months after the incident. The Investigating Officer P.W.9 in his 
deposition however denied that P.W.3 was called for the first two times. 
According to the said witness the evidence of P. W.3 was recorded for the first D 
time after 1 Yz months. [848-B-CJ 
2.2. It is expected that in a case involving death of a person, the 
Investigating officer would have visited the place of occurrence 
immediately. If that be so, it is also expected that the statements of 
witnesses who were present would be recorded. There is no reason E 
whatsoever as to why the statement of PW.3 was not recorded on the date 
of occurrence and in any event within a reasonable time. If P.W.3 is to be 
believed he was in constant touch with the investigating officer, it betrays 
all reasons as to why he was examined after only six weeks. (848-D, E) 
3. It is not possible to arrive at a definite finding by taking aid of F 
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code that appellants could be convicted 
for commission of an offence under Section 304(11). Benefit of doubt should 
be given to the appellants. [848-E, HJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1131/ G 
2000. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 22-2-2000 of the High Court 
of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 635 of 1989. 
S.K. Gambhir, Anil Sharma, B.K. Sharma and T.N. Singh for the H 
846 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A Appellants. 
C.D. Singh for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
S.B. SINHA, J. Accused No. 1-Premnarain and accused No. 3-Jagdish 
before the trial
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.