SHAHAJA @ SHAHAJAN ISMAIL MOHD. SHAIKH versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2022] 12 S.C.R. 196 · Decided: 14-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
196
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 12 S.C.R.
SHAHAJA @ SHAHAJAN ISMAIL MOHD. SHAIKH
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 739 of 2017)
JULY 14, 2022
[SURYA KANT AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Murder – Evidence – Ocular
evidence – Discovery of fact in consequence of an information
received from accused – Victim-deceased and appellant were working
as labourers – Prosecution case that quarrel ensued between the
victim and the appellant on the night of 10.12.2006, which was
witnessed by PW-1 and PW-8 – Appellant assaulted victim with a
hammer on his head – Victim died – Trial Court relied upon the oral
testimony of the PW-1,PW-8 and the evidence of discovery of weapon
i.e. hammer and convicted appellant – High Court concurred with
the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal – On appeal,
held: In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses,
two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of
the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of
occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them
to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there
is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence –
In respect of both these considerations, the circumstances either
elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other
evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the
veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value
which a Court would attach to their evidence – In the instant case,
there is nothing palpable or glaring in the evidence of the two eye-
witnesses on the basis of which the Court can take the view that
they are not true or reliable eye-witnesses – Both the Courts below
rightly believed the two eye witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-8 – As far
as discovery of weapon is concerned, in the absence of exact words,
attributed to an accused person, as statement made by him being
deposed by the Investigating Officer in his evidence, and also
without proving the contents of the panchnamas, the trial Court
was not justified in placing reliance upon the circumstance of
discovery of weapon – However, the conduct of the appellant herein
[2022] 12 S.C.R. 196
196
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
197
would be relevant u/s. 8 of the Evidence Act – Evidence Act, 1872 –
ss. 8 and 27.
Constitution of India – Exercise of power under Art.136 in
criminal appeals – Discussed.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard
task. There is no fixed or straight-jacket formula for appreciation
of the ocular evidence. The judicially evolved principles for
appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case can be
enumerated as under:
I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the
approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a
whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is
formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize
the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies,
drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole
and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general
tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier
evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of
belief.
II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence
had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor
of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had
not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation
of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty
and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on
the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial
details.
III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite
possible for him to make some discrepancies. 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.
IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the
core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences
torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching
SHAHAJA @ SHAHAJAN ISMAIL MOHD. SHAIKH v. STATE
OF MAHARASHTRA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
198
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 12 S.C.R.
importance to some technical error committed by the investigating
officer not going t

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