2003 (10) TMI 690 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Convicts Respondents, Sentences to Life Imprisonment, Citing Eyewitness Testimony Over Medical Evidence.

Ramanand Yadav Versus Prabhu Nath Jha and Ors.

The SC overturned the HC's acquittal, convicting the respondents under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The SC ... Challenged the Judgment of High Court, directed acquittal upsetting conviction recorded - Guilty of offence punishable u/s 302 read with Section 149 IPC - Delayed examination of witnesses PW - Non-examination of certain witnesses present at the scene - Inconsistency between medical and ocular evidence - HELD THAT:- The first factor which appears to have weighed with the High Court is taking the deceased to the hospital at some distance. The prosecution evidence amply clarifies as to why that was necessary to be done and the reading of evidence of PWs 1 and 12 is relevant in this regard. The impression may be totally out of context; but the reason given cannot be said to be wholly implausible. Therefore, that should not have been taken as a ground by the High Court for directing acquittal. The second factor which has weighed with the High Court is the delayed examination of three witnesses i.e. PWs 6, 7 and 9. The evidence of PW-7 does not appear to be very much credible and the trial Court and the High Court also did not appear to have placed much reliance on his evidence. But so far as PWs 6 and 9 are concerned, it is clear from reading of the evidence that the Investigating Officer was not asked specifically the reason for their delayed examination. This Court in several decisions has held that unless the Investigating Officer is categorically asked as to why there was delay in examination of the witnesses the defence cannot gain any advantage therefrom. So far as non-examination of Lambodar and two others is concerned it is established by the evidence on record that the village was a faction ridden one. In some cases persons may not like to come and depose as witnesses and in some other cases the prosecution may carry the impression that their evidence would not help it as there is likelihood of partisan approach so far as one of the parties is concerned. In such a case mere non examination would not effect the prosecution version. But at the same time if the relatives or interested witnesses are examined, the Court has a duty to analyse the evidence with deeper scrutiny, and then come to a conclusion as to whether it has a ring of truth or there is reason for holding that the evidence was biased. Whenever a plea is taken that the witness is partisan or had any hostility towards the accused foundation for the same has to be laid. If the materials show that there is partisan approach, as indicated above the Court has to analyse the evidence with care and caution. Additionally, the accused persons have always the option of examining the left out persons as defence witnesses. The inevitable conclusion because of the factual and legal panorama noted above is that the High Court was not justified in directing acquittal. The same is set aside. Respondents are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. As they are on bail, they shall surrender forthwith to suffer remainder of the sentence. The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. Issues Involved:1. Justification for not taking the deceased to the nearby referral hospital.2. Delayed examination of witnesses PWs 6, 7, and 9.3. Non-examination of certain witnesses present at the scene.4. Alleged inconsistency between medical and ocular evidence.5. High Court's reliance on the credibility of witnesses and the overall prosecution case.Summary of Judgment:1. Justification for not taking the deceased to the nearby referral hospital:The High Court questioned why the deceased was not taken to the closer referral hospital. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution witnesses provided a plausible explanation: doctors were often unavailable at the referral hospital. This was substantiated by the fact that Dr. Manoj, who first examined the deceased, was from the referral hospital. The Supreme Court held that this reason was not implausible and should not have been a ground for acquittal.2. Delayed examination of witnesses PWs 6, 7, and 9:The High Court noted the delayed examination of these witnesses. The Supreme Court observed that the Investigating Officer was not specifically questioned about this delay. Citing precedents, the Court held that without such questioning, the defense cannot benefit from this delay. The evidence of PW-7 was found unreliable, but PWs 6 and 9 were credible, and their delayed examination did not justify discarding the prosecution's version.3. Non-examination of certain witnesses present at the scene:The High Court drew adverse inferences from the non-examination of witnesses like Lambodar Jha. The Supreme Court noted that in faction-ridden villages, some witnesses might be reluctant to testify. The prosecution is not obliged to examine every witness, especially if they might be biased. The Court emphasized that the defense could have called these witnesses themselves. The High Court's adverse inference was deemed erroneous.4. Alleged inconsistency between medical and ocular evidence:The High Court found a discrepancy between the medical evidence and the eyewitness accounts, particularly regarding the absence of a bullet injury. The Supreme Court reiterated that oral evidence generally takes precedence over medical evidence unless the latter conclusively disproves the former. The Court found no significant variance between the medical and ocular evidence concerning the assaults by other accused. Even if there was a variance regarding accused Prabhu Nath Jha, he could still be convicted u/s 34 IPC.5. High Court's reliance on the credibility of witnesses and the overall prosecution case:The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for over-relying on the medical opinion to discredit eyewitness testimony. The Court emphasized that medical evidence should only negate eyewitness accounts if it conclusively rules out their version. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had unjustifiably eliminated relevant and convincing materials, leading to an erroneous acquittal.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's acquittal, convicting the respondents u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing them to life imprisonment. The respondents were ordered to surrender to serve the remainder of their sentence. The appeals were allowed.