2003 (10) TMI 640 - SC - Indian Laws

Acquittal overturned; primary accused convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC, others held liable under Section 149 IPC

RAJ KISHORE JHA Versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

SC allowed the appeal partly, finding the High Court's acquittal order was non-reasoned and had wrongly discredited several eyewitnesses merely because ... Challenged the acquittal order of the accused by the High Court - Reliability of prosecution witnesses and evidence - offences punishable under section 302 read with Section 109 IPC - non-examination of Investigating Officer - requirement of compliance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act - HELD THAT:- No requirement of mentioning the names of all witnesses in the first information report. No reason has also been indicated by the High Court as to why the evidence of PWs. 3, 8, 11,12 and 15 was to be obliterated merely because they were accused in the counter case. In a case of this nature, when counter case has been registered, the Court hearing the same has to scrutinize the evidence with greater detail and even in such a situation the evidence which is cogent, credible and trustworthy cannot be totally wiped out because of the only circumstance that they were accused in the counter case. Additionally, we find that PWs. 3, 6 and 9 have not been merely described in the first information to have taken the deceased to the hospital, as observed by the High Court. A bare reading of the first information report clearly shows that they were described as eyewitnesses also. Here again, the High Court has committed error. In the present case after examination- in-chief and partial cross-examination, the Investigating Officer had died. Therefore, this cannot be a case which can be stated to have caused any prejudice to the accused on account of Investigating Officer's non- examination. The prosecution cannot be attributed with any lapse or ulterior motives in such circumstances. Since the judgment of the High Court is practically non-reasoned, one course open is to remit the matter back to the High Court to rehear appeal and pass a reasoned judgment dealing with all relevant aspects. But considering the long passage of time, we think it appropriate to decide the case by analyzing the evidence brought on record. Taking into account the fact that the only shot was fired from a considerable distance in this case application of Section 302 IPC, is ruled out, though there cannot be any rule that whenever one shot is fired from a distance, Section 302 IPC would not be applicable. It would depend upon the nature of the gun, the position of the assailant and the victim, obstructions from any intermediary object which may cause deflection of the shot and several other relevant factors. The appropriate applicable provision on the facts of the case is Section 304 Part II IPC so far as Bundeo Jha (A-l) is concerned. Rest of the accused persons who were convicted by the Trial Court were implicated by application of Section 149 IPC. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated. The respondents who are on bail shall surrender to custody forthwith to serve the remainder of their sentence, if any. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the High Court's acquittal of the accused.2. Reliability of prosecution witnesses and evidence.3. Impact of non-examination of the Investigating Officer.4. Applicability of Section 302 IPC versus Section 304 Part II IPC.5. Role of appellate courts in reversing lower court judgments.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the High Court's Acquittal of the Accused:The Supreme Court questioned the legality of the High Court's judgment that acquitted nine respondents. The High Court's conclusions were found to be based on irrelevant grounds and a perfunctory consideration of evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that appellate courts must prevent miscarriage of justice by intervening when necessary. The High Court's judgment was criticized for being practically non-reasoned and for failing to provide sound footing for its conclusions.2. Reliability of Prosecution Witnesses and Evidence:The High Court doubted the reliability of prosecution witnesses because their names were not mentioned in the FIR and some were accused in a counter case. The Supreme Court clarified that not mentioning witnesses in the FIR does not automatically discredit their testimony. The Court cited precedents to support this view, emphasizing that credible and trustworthy evidence should not be disregarded merely because the witnesses were accused in a counter case.3. Impact of Non-Examination of the Investigating Officer:The High Court found that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer, who died during the trial, caused prejudice to the accused. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that non-examination does not always affect the credibility of the prosecution's case. The Court referenced several cases where it was held that non-examination does not vitiate the trial if the remaining evidence is credible and trustworthy.4. Applicability of Section 302 IPC versus Section 304 Part II IPC:The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and found that the only shot fired by Bundeo Jha (A-1) from a considerable distance did not warrant a conviction under Section 302 IPC. Instead, the Court held that Section 304 Part II IPC was applicable, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Court also convicted other accused under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC, considering their roles in the incident.5. Role of Appellate Courts in Reversing Lower Court Judgments:The Supreme Court highlighted that appellate courts must provide reasoned judgments, especially when reversing lower court decisions. The Court criticized the High Court for not giving adequate reasons for its conclusions and emphasized that reason is the 'heartbeat of every conclusion.' The Supreme Court decided to analyze the evidence itself due to the long passage of time and provided a detailed judgment.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal to the extent indicated, confirming the acquittal of some accused while convicting others under Section 304 Part II IPC and related sections. The Court ordered the respondents on bail to surrender to custody to serve the remainder of their sentences. The judgment emphasized the importance of reasoned conclusions by appellate courts, particularly in cases of reversal.