RAVI MANDAL versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Citation: [2023] 7 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 18-05-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HRISHIKESH ROY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
   [2023] 7 S.C.R. 1
1
RAVI MANDAL
v.
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
(Criminal Appeal No. 511 of 2011)
MAY 18, 2023
[HRISHIKESH ROY AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 34 and 201 – Arms Act, 1959 –
ss. 4 and 25 – Acquittal under – FIR lodged by PW-1 (father of
deceased) after founding dead body of his son at 0730 hours on
01.11.2001 in a forest, alleging that deceased was with ‘R’ and ‘G’
on 31.10.2001 at about 2100 hours – Later, he replaced ‘G’ with
‘S’ in written information – Both accused (R and S) were convicted
by the Trial Court u/s.302 r/w. s.34, s.201 of IPC and ss. 4/25 of the
Arms Act – Trial Court relied on testimonies of PW-2 and PW-5 to
conclude that deceased was last seen alive in the company of the
accused persons – Trial Court also noticed that as per FSL report
the empty cartridge recovered from the spot was fired from the same
pistol which was recovered from ‘S’ – High Court confirmed the
conviction – On appeal, held: According to the testimony of police
witnesses, it was the informant who gave information to the police
about his son’s dead body – Whereas, according to PW-1 the police
informed him that his son’s dead body has been found in the forest
– In FIR there is no disclosure as to how the body was found in the
forest – FIR did not name any witness who had seen the deceased
with accused persons – Further, ‘S’ was not named as accused in
FIR at the first instance and was only arrayed at later stage –
Explanation offered by PW-2 is delayed disclosure – Similarly,
explanation offered by PW-5 for his presence at the spot at the odd
hours appears false – There is contradiction in PW-5’s statement
made u/s. 161 and in his deposition before the Court as to presence
of ‘G’ with deceased – Therefore, the testimony of PW-2 and PW-5
does not inspire confidence – Forensic report/ballistic report were
not even put to ‘S’, while recording his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. –
In the case at hand, the evidence was not confidence inspiring as
to uphold the conviction of the accused-appellants – Thus, impugned
judgments and orders of the Trial Court set aside.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
Witnesses – Chance witness – Reliability of – Held: The law
is settled, which is, evidence of a chance witness requires a very
cautious and close scrutiny and a chance witness must adequately
explain his presence at the place of occurrence – Deposition of
chance witness whose presence at the place of incident remains
doubtful should be discarded.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The striking feature of the case is that the FIR
of the case was lodged at 0730 Hours on 01.11.2001 after the
dead body of informant’s son was found in a forest. According to
the testimony of police witnesses, it was the informant who gave
information to the police about his son’s dead body being found
in the forest and thereafter, on the basis of the FIR, investigation
commenced. Whereas, according to PW-1 the police informed
him that his son’s dead body has been found in the forest and
thereafter, he went to the spot, brought the body to the police
station and then lodged the report. This cleavage in the testimony
of prosecution witnesses is important because it would throw a
question as to whether the prosecution case is based on
informant’s own knowledge and information or on suggestions/
guess work, may be at the instance of the police. [Para 19][18-H;
19-A-C]
2. Prosecution case is primarily based on the evidence of
the deceased being last seen alive with the two accused near the
place of occurrence on or about the probable time of occurrence.
Such evidence is forthcoming from two witnesses, namely, PW-2
and PW-5. Insofar as PW-2 is concerned, admittedly, he is not
listed as a witness in the police report/charge sheet. He gave his
statement to the police on an affidavit for the first time on
18.02.2002, that is, the date when the police report was prepared.
This implies that he remained silent for as long as three and a
half months. Hence, this Court is to examine whether there was
a cogent explanation offered by PW-2. In the instant case, the
only explanation offered by PW-2 for his three and a half month’s
silence is that he felt threatened. With regard to his threat
perception, PW-2 stated that in the night of the incident when he
witnessed ‘R’ and ‘S’ emerging from the forest, soon after the
incident, he noticed their hands and clothes blood stained. On
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
RAVI MANDAL v. STA

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