YOGESH SINGH versus MAHABEER SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 7 S.C.R. 713 · Decided: 20-10-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 7 S.C.R. 713 
YOGESH SINGH 
v. 
MAHABEER SINGH & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No.1482 of 2013) 
OCTOBER 20, 2016 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
s. 302 rlw s.149 - Murder - Head severed from trunk- Incident 
witnessed by daughter and also father of the deceased - Trial court 
convicted six persons - High Court acquitted the accused persons-
respondents - Appeal against acquittal by son of the deceased -
Held: It was not the case of the accused that they were prejudiced 
by the alleged delay in dispatch of the FIR to the nearest Magistrate 
competent to take cognizance of such offence - Non-recording of 
certain relevant entries in the inquest report did not constitute a 
material defect so grave to throw out the prosecution story and the 
otherwise reliable testimonies of prosecution witnesses that remained 
uncontroverted - There was no major contradiction either in the 
evidence of the witnesses or any conflict in medical or ocular 
evidence which would tilt the balance in favour of the respondents 
- The minor improvements, embellishments etc., were insignificant 
and ignored since the evidence of the witnesses otherwise 
corroborated each other in material particulars - The view expressed 
by High Court was not plausible one - Trial court had correctly 
analyzed the material on record to arrive at its conclusion - Order 
of conviction passed by trial court restored 
Criminal Jurisprudence: 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Burden to prove guilt - Held: The guilt of the accused must be 
proved beyond all reasonable doubJs - However, the burden on the 
prosecution is only to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt 
G 
and not all doubts. 
Two views - Held: If two views are possible 011 the evidence 
adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and 
the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the 
accused should be adopted. 
H 
713 
714 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 7 S.C.R. 
Evidence: 
Testimony of child witness - Evidentiary value of - Held: 
Evidence of a child witness must be evaluated carefully" and with 
greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed 
by what others tell him and thus a child witness is an easy prey to 
tutoring. 
Medical evidence - Evidentiary value of - Held: Is only 
corroborative and not conclusive ...:. In case of a conflict between 
oral evidence and medical evidence, the former is to be preferred 
unless the medical evidence completely rules out the oral evidence. 
Testimony of related/interested witness - Evidentiary value of 
- Held: Evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that 
the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased - In case 
the evidence has a ring of truth in it, is cogent, credible and 
trustworthy, it can be relied upon. 
Minor contradictions in prosecution evidence - Effect on 
prosecution case - Held: Minor contradictions, inconsistencies or 
insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution 
case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution 
evidence - The omission should create a serious doubt about the 
truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness - It is only the serious 
contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of 
the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission. 
Delay/Laches: 
Delay in examination of prosecution witness/child witnesses 
- Effect of- Held: The trial court observed that child witness (PW5) 
was cross-examined on practically every detail of the prosecution 
story and her statement corroborated every part thereof - It was 
rightly observed by the Trial Judge that the delay was on account 
of the fact that the Investigating Officer wanted to assure himself of 
the veracity of her statement and hence, she was examined after 
she had time to recover from the shock of the incident and compose 
herself - Under these circumstances, any delay in examining this 
witness uls. 161 of Cr.P.C. will not prejudice the_pTosecution - Code -
·of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.161. 
Delay in sending FIR to Magistrate - Held: Although in terms 
YOGESH SINGH v. MAHABEER SINGH & ORS. 
of s.J 57 Cr:P.C., the police officer concerned is required to forward 
a copy of the FIR to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance 
of such offence, promptly and without undue delay, it cannot be 
laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever there is 
some delay in sending the 

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