RAMMI @ RAMESHWAR ETC. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 21-09-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

,- . 
_, 
RAMMI @ RAMESHWAR ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
SEPTEMBER 21, .1999 
[KT. THOMAS AND A.P. MISRA, .TJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: Section 304/34-Murder inside a bus-Appreciation 
of evidence-Prosecution examining 'driver' , 'conductor' and a passenger of 
the bus-Cross examination-Discrepancies in evidence-Trial Coun dis-
believing the prosecution witnesses, awarding acquittal-High Cowt reversing 
the finding of Ilia! Cowt regarding credibility of witnesses--Conviction and 
sentence-On appeal, held the evidence of driver and conductor are most 
natural and evinces credibility-Minor vmiations in their statements does not 
amount to discredit the core of their evidence-Conviction and sentence 
upheld-Evidence Act, 1872 : Sections 155, 145 and 138. 
Evidence Act, 1872 : 
Sections 155 and 145--Impeaching the credit ofwitnesses-b1consistent, 
statements-Whether sufficient to impeach the credit of witnesses-Held, 
no-A f onner statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need 
not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. 
Section 138-Re-e.xamination of witnesses-Scope and object of 
Section 27-Recovery of weapon at the instance of accused-Admis-
sibility of 
Criminal trial-Post-event conduct of witness-Murder taking place in 
a bus-Witness, a passenger not informing the incident to the members of 
deceased family or police-Held, post-event conduct of witness vmies from 
person to person-Different persons react differently on seeing any violence 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
and their behaviour and conduct would be different-Thus no abnormality in G 
the conduct of the witness. 
Public prosecutor-Re-examination of witnesses-Failure to discharge . 
his rights and duties-Deprecated 
Appellants were prosecuted for an offence under Section 302 read H 
1 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution case was that while 'S' was travelling 
in bus, the appellants-accused thirsting for revenge for the murder of first 
appellant's brother by 'S', boarded the bus and started attacking 'S' with 
chopper and knives inflicting as many as 12 incised injuries. After killing 
'S', accused alighted from the bus and escaped. The bus was driven to 
B police station and FIR was lodged by conductor-PW-8. The accused were 
arrested and after interrogation the weapons used for the Murder were 
recovered by PW-13 at the instance of the appellant. The Trial Court 
disbelieving the evidence of PW-8, PW-9, PW-12 and PW-13 acquitted the 
appellants. However, the Division Bench of High Court by reversing the 
findings of Trial Court convicted them for an offence under Section 302 
C read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. 
Hence the present appeal. 
The contention of the appellant was that the reasoning of the Trial 
Judge regarding different items of the incriminating evidence did not 
warrant interference in an appeal against acquittal as the views expressed 
D by the Trial Judge was not unreasonable. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The approach by the Trial Court in groping for dis-
E crepancies in the testimony of witnesses had resulted in the unmerited 
acquittal. The High Court was justified in convicting the appellants under 
Section 302 IPC. [11-A-B] 
1.2. When an eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible 
for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape 
F from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is 
well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant. 
But Courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the 
evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version 
that the Court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a 
G view to be adopted on mere variation falling in the narration of an 
incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between 
two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial 
scrutiny. [11-B-D] 
1.3. It is a common practice in trial courts to make out contradic-
H tions from previous statement of a witness for confronting him during 
RAMMlv. STATE 
3 
cross-examination. Merely because there is inconsistency in evidence it is A 
not sufficient to impair the credit of the witness. No doubt Section 155 
of the Evidence Act provides scope for impeaching the credit of a witness 
by proof of inconsistent former statement. But a reading of the

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