RAMANAND YADA V versus PRABHU NATH JHA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 42 · Decided: 31-10-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAMAN AND Y ADA V 
V. 
PRABHU NATH JHA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 31, 2003 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
" 
Criminal Trial 
c 
Practice and procedure--Order of acquittal-Interference by appellate 
Court-When-Held: When there are compelling and substantial reasons for 
doing do as miscarriage of justice may result from acquittal of guilty-No 
embargo on re-appreciation of evidence by appellate Court-Re-appreciation 
of evidence permissible when admissible evidence ignored-Indian Penal Code, 
1860-Sections 34, 149 and 302-Arms Act, 1959-&ctions 25A and 27-
D Explosive Substance Act, 1908-Section 3. 
Appreciation of evidence--Opinion evidence-Inconsistency between 
evidence of medical witness and eye witness-Evidentiary value-Held, oral 
evidence to get primacy as medical evidence is opinionated-Testimony of eye 
witness to be discarded only when medical evidence conclusively rules out 
E even possibility of version of eye witness. 
Appreciation of evidence-Eye witness-Interested or partisan 
witnesses-Held, duty of Court to analyse evidence with deeper scruti~ 
Non-examination of other eye witnesses-Held, mere non-examination would 
F 
not affect prosecution version. 
Prosecution alleged that day of occurrence when the informant and 
his elder brother, D, went to market place to take tea at tea-shop, accused 
P fired at D on right lower side chest with a revolver I pistol as a result of 
which D fell down and accused persons Land B hurted bombs at fallen D 
G 
while remaining five accused persons fired in the air and threw brickbats 
to scare the villagers to run away. D was firstly taken to a clinic and 
thereafter to a hospital but at both places he was delivered dead. Trial 
Court convicted accused persons P, L and B under Section 302 of Indian 
Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 25A and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 
.. 
while accused L and B were also convicted under Sections 3 of the 
H 
42 
RAMANAND Y ADAV v. PRABHU NA TH JHA 
43 
Explosive Substances Act, 1980. The remaining five accused persons were A 
convicted under Section 302 read with Sections 149 IPC. 
In appeal preferred by the accused persons, High Court set aside 
the conviction and acquitted all eight accused persons on the ground that 
there was no explanation as to why deceased was taken to hospital at some 
distance instead of a nearby referral hospital; that PWs 6,7 and 9 were B 
examined three days after occurrence; that eye witnesses other than 
interested witnesses were not examined by prosecution; and that medical 
evidence is inconsistent with prosecution case as no bullet was found on 
the right lower side chest of the deceased. Hence, these appeals by the 
informant and the State. However, the scope of appeals was restricted to C 
accused persons P, L and B was dismissed as far as after accused persons 
were concerned. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1. PWs 1 and 2 have categorically stated that at most of the 
times the doctors at referral hospital are not present. They substantiated D 
this impression by pointing out that Dr. Manoj who had first examined 
the deceased and declared him to be dead was a doctor of the referral 
hospital. The impression may be totally out of context; but the reason given 
cannot be said to be wholly implausible. Therefore, that should not have 
been taken as a ground by the High Court for directing acquittal. 
E 
[50-D, EJ 
2. It is clear from reading of the evidence that the Investigating 
Officer was not asked specifically the reason for the delayed examination 
of PWs 6, 7 and 9. Unless the Investigating Officer is categorically asked 
as to why there was delay in examination of the witnesses the defence F 
cannot gain any advantage therefrom. [50-F, G) 
Ranbir and Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR (1973) SC 1409 and Bodhraj 
@ Bodha and Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, [2002) 8 SCC 45, relied 
on. 
3. It is established by the evidence on record that the village was a G 
faction ridden one. In some cases persons may not like to come and depose 
as witnesses and in some other cases the prosecution inay carry the 
impression that their evidence would not help it as there is likelihood of 
partisan approach so far as one of the parties is concerned. In such a case 
mere non-examination would not affect the prosecution version. But at H 
44 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A the same time if the relatives or interested witnesses are examined, the 
... 
Court has a duty to analyse th

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