LexSTATE OF HARYANA versus TEK SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF HARYANA
A
v.
TEK SINGH AND ORS.
MAY 3, 1999
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.]
B
Criminal Law:
Penal Code 1860-Sections 148, 149, 302, 449-8 accused forming an
unlawful assembly-Assault and murder of two persons-Eye witnesses fully C
corroborated by medical evidence-Conviction by Sessions Court-Acquittal
of 5 accused by High Court based on miner contradictions-Relying on
statement of witnesses during investigation-Held, erroneous-Minor
exaggerations will not be a ground for rejecting testimony of eye-witnesses-
Evidence Act, 1872.
Criminal trial :
Evidence recorded by a Police Officer under Section 173 Cr. P.C.-
Held, cannot be considered while appreciating the deposition of witnesses
before court.
Respondents along with three others were charged for offences
punishable under Sections 14S, 449 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The
accused before the Sessions Court contended that they were falsely implicated,
that brother of accused A 7 had suffered injuries and that AS was not present
D
E
at the scene of occurrence since he was attending a bhog ceremony. The F
Sessions court relying on the evidence of eye witnesses coupled with the
medical evidence and circumstantial evidence convicted and s.entenced all the
S accused.
On appeal by the accused, High Court reappraised the entire evidence
and held that the prosecution has failed to prove motive of accused Al, AS G
A6, A4 and AS for joining the other accused in assaulting the deceased. The
High Court held that considering the measurement of the room where the
dead body lay it was not possible to believe that it could accommodate accused
persons to enter with their weapons and kill the deceased inside the house.
The High Court further held that in the light of statements recorded by the
Investigating Officer under Section 173 Cr. P.C. the ocular evidence had to H
967
968
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1999] 2 S.C.R.
A be appreciated with due caution as regards accused AS, A6, A7 and A8 and
that the medical evidence qua Al, A2, A3, A 7 and A8 does not corroborate
the evidence of eye witnesses. Thus the High Court acquitted them but
convicted A2, AS & A6.
On appeal by State before this Court against the acquittal of five
B accused, it was contended that the reasons given by the High Court in
reversing the finding of conviction of respondents are erroneous, that the
entire approach of the High Court in appreciating the evidence of the
eyewitnesses and giving benefit of doubt on insignifo~ant om missions or
contradictions or on the ground that it is not corroborated by the medical
C evidence is erroneous and has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice.
Respondents contended that the High Court has rightly appreciated the
evidence and arrived at the conclusion that the role ·assigned to the
respondents and their participation in crime by the witnesses was not
established in view of medical evidence, that there is material improvement
D in the version of the prosecution witnesses at the time of trial in order to
make their testimony in line with the medical evidence and that it is not a
fit case for interference.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
E
HELD : 1. The entire approach of the High Court in appreciating the
evidence of the eye-witnesses is erroneous. The Court ought not to have
taken into consideration the report of the Investigating Officer under Section
173 Cr. P.C. while appreciating the evidence led before the Court. [974-AJ
2. The High Court while appreciating the evidence ought to have kept
F in mind and visualised {he situation at the time of occurrence of the incident.
Evidence of the witnesses should be appreciated by keeping ground reality
and fact-situation in mind. It is also established law that even with regard
to the interested witness, it is the duty of the Court to separate truth from
falsehood and the chaff from the grain. In view of the close relationship,
G witnesses naturally would have a tendency to exaggerate or add facts but
while appreciating the evidence exaggerated facts are to be ignored unless
it affects substratum of prosecution story. If there is some exaggeration ,in
the evidence of the witnesses those exaggerations are to be separated by
taking into consideration overall facts on record. With regard to the main
part of the prosecution version that accused assault deceased G, the
H prosecution evidence in fully corroborated by medical evidence. The medical
-
STAExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.