SUKHDEV YADAV AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 91 · Decided: 13-09-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SUKHDEV YADAV AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
SEPTEMBER 13, 2001 
[UMESH C. BANERJEE AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.] 
Evidence Act, 1872 : Section 3: 
Evidence-Appreciation of-Accused alleged to have fired at the 
deceased-Testimony of witnesses-Minor discrepan.:ies-Trial Court convicted 
the accused-High Court upheld conviction-On appeal, held if evidence in its 
entirety trustworthy, d:vergence in evidence cannot oust the prosecution c4se-
Penal Code, 1860-S.302. 
Criminal Trial : 
Seizure List-Non-production qf-Does not vitiate the trial. 
Appellants were convicted under section 302 of the Penal Code 1860 
and were awarded life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that on the 
fateful day when informant and his son were on their way back to the 
village, the son reached the house of one 'M' and was surrounded by 
appellants. On the call of appellant No.1, One 'R' fired at the son who fell 
down dead. Thereafter, the other accused persons fled away. At the trial, 
five prosecution witnesses deposed that they had seen the actual occurrence 
and that the accused persons surrounded that deceased and one 'R' fired 
shot at him. However, defence witness stated that the place of occurrence 
was different. Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants. On 
appeal, High Court upheld the conviction and sentence. Hence the present 
appeal. 
Appellants contended that there has been a divergence of evidence as 
regards the place of occurrence which displaces the prosecution case. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
HELD: 1.1. Court can sif't the chaff from the grain and find out the 
truth from the evidence itself. There may be minor variations but if on a 
perusal of the evidence in its entirety, it appears to be otherwise trustworthy, 
H 
91 
A 
B 
c 
92 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
question of the evidence being non-trustworthy would not arise. (100-C;D] 
1.2. In the instant case, there ate some variations in testimony of 
witnesses regarding the place of occurrence and the manner in which the 
incident took place but there exists no major contradiction on record. 
Therefore, the evidence tendered lends credence to the prosecution case as 
regards the involvement of the appellants in the murder. [100-C; D] 
Leela Ram (Dead) through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana & Am:, 
[1999) 9 SCC 525; State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, [1985) 1SCC505; Rammi v. 
State of M.P., [1999] 8 SCC 649; Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P., AIR (1959) 
SC 1012 and Appabhai and Am: v. State of Gujarat, [1988] Suppl. SCC 241, 
referred to. 
2. In case of a lapse on the part of the prosecution the issue has to be 
considered from the point of view of prejudice to the accused. If prejudice 
has been caused by reason of at such a lapse it will have a serious impact on 
D 
the trial but if no prejudice is caused the question of the trial being vitiated 
would not arise. Therefore, on facts the eye-witnesses account as available 
on record cannot but be termed to be trustworthy and by reason therefor, 
the lapses of non-production of the seizure list stands over-shadowed by 
the testimony of the eye-witnesses. [102-E; F] 
E 
Shivnath Singh & Am: v. State of U.P., [1994) 2 SCC 563 and Baleshwar 
Manda! & Am: v. State of Bihar, AIR (1997) SC 347, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 482 
of 2000. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.99 of the Patna High Court 
in Cr!. A. No. 154 of 1993. 
K.T.S. Tulsi, Ms. J.S. Wad, Ashish Wad, Ms. Niharika Bahl for Mis. J.S. 
Wad & Co. for the Appellants. 
G 
Saket Singh, B.B. Singh, Prabhash Kr. Yadav and Dr. K.S. Chauhan for 
the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BANERJEE, J. It is now well-settled that the Court can sift the chaff 
H 
from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. The 
r
SUKHDEV YADAV v. STATE OF BIHAR [RAJENDRA BABU, J.J 
. 93 
evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness and once 
the same stands satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court 
to accept the stated evidence. This Court in Leela Ram (Dead) Through Duli 
Chand v. State ~f Haryana and Am:, [1999] 9 SCC 525 relying upon an earlier 
decision of this Court in State ~f U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, [1985] 1 SCC 505 
observed: 
" ... There are bound to be some discrepancies between the 
narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and 
unless the contradictions are of a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.