Niranjan Vs. State Through Chief Sectt., Delhi Admntr.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 231 of 1998
Petitioner: Niranjan
Respondent: State Through Chief Sectt., Delhi Admntr.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 231 of 1998
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 30, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Evidence Act, 1872
Section 3 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 324 – Benefit of doubt – Witness – Injured eye-witness – Presence not disputed – Witness however in an inebriated condition – Incident in night – Many assailants – Reliability – Informant disowned F.I.R – No Recovery of weapon pursuant to disclosure. Held that witness cannot be relied upon as to the role of appellant and he is entitled to benefit of doubt.
Held:
Apparently, PW-1 is not a witness who can be included within the category of “wholly reliable” witnesses. He would not have been in a position to grasp the entire gamut of the incident with all details at the time when the incident happened because of his peculiar condition then as the visibility was also slightly affected. We must bear in mind that the incident happened at night and there was only electric light to provide him visibility. Assailants themselves were quite a large number and who among them gave which type of strike and which portion of the victim was struck etc. are not matters for which the Court can safely depend on the statement of PW-1. Nonetheless, if there could be corroborating materials we would lean to act on the testimony of PW-1, for, nobody can dispute that PW-1 was present at the scene.
(Paras 6, 7)
The F.I.R. was supplied by PW-8 who disowned it and he was declared hostile by the public prosecutor. Not even a weapon has been recovered pursuant to any information elicited from the appellant. Therefore, there is complete dearth of any material to ensure confidence in the judicial mind that whatever PW-1 has stated against him was true.
(Para 7)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Out of four accused arraigned before the sessions court appellant was convicted under Section 302 and Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. A Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. He filed this appeal by special leave and later requested through letter to discharge Mr. S.K. Verma, advocate, whom he engaged earlier. Thereafter, we appointed Ms. Karthika S., advocate as amicus curiae to argue for the appellant.
2. We heard today the detailed arguments of Ms. Karthika S. and Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned Additional Solicitor General.
3. The story of the prosecution, in brief, is the following:
On 13.1.1986, there was a dance in connection with the celebration of Lohri festival. By about 8.00 p.m., appellant along with others wanted to dance in the company of ladies but was dissuaded from doing so by others. So, he left that venue in a huff. This happened at about 9.00 p.m. About one and a half hours thereafter, while the persons who participated in the dance, including deceased Shyam Lal, were proceeding to Chandni Chowk they were surrounded by a large number of persons including the four accused. The assailants attacked the deceased and PW-1 among which the appellant inflicted stab injuries on the deceased. He sustained incised wound among which one was on the left side of the chest and another one was on the abdomen. The injury which he sustained on the chest was on the anterior auxiliary line and the posterior auxiliary line. Surgical emphysema was present and air entry was diminished in the left side. He was taken to the Hindu Rao Hospital, where he was operated upon, but on 16.1.1986 he succumbed to the injuries.
4. As the sessions court and the High Court found that Shyam Lal sustained fatal injuries, we are not disposed to conduct any further probe as to whether it is a case of homicide. The only question is, whether appellant was among the many assailants who gave fatal injuries to the deceased.
5. The solitary witness to support the case against the appellant is PW-1 (Surinder Kumar). He himself was injured and, therefore, his presence at the spot cannot be doubted. But an aspect against the witness is that he was admittedly in an inebriated condition then. He was taken to the Hospital at 10.30 in the night and the doctor, who examined him certified that alcohol was smelt in his breath and the doctor advised that he would be in a position to give a statement only by 12.50 a.m.
6. Apparently, PW-1 is not a witness who can be included within the category of “wholly reliable” witnesses. He would not have been in a position to grasp the entire gamut of the incident with all details at the time when the incident happened because of his peculiar condition then as the visibility was also slightly affected. We must bear in mind that the incident happened at night and there was only electric light to provide him visibility. Assailants themselves were quite a large number and who among them gave which type of strike and which portion of the victim was struck etc. are not matters for which the Court can safely depend on the statement of PW-1.
7. Nonetheless, if there could be corroborating materials we would lean to act on the testimony of PW-1, for, nobody can dispute that PW-1 was present at the scene. The Division Bench of the High Court found the F.I.R. as a material for corroboration. But the F.I.R. was supplied by PW-8 who disowned it and he was declared hostile by the public prosecutor. We are told that not even a weapon has been recovered pursuant to any information elicited from the appellant. Therefore, there is complete dearth of any material to ensure confidence in the judicial mind that whatever PW-1 has stated against him was true.
8. A reasonable degree of doubt as to the role played by the appellant in the occurrence exists in the judicial minds. We have to extend the benefit of that doubt to the appellant.
9. We place on record our gratitude to Ms. Karthika S., advocate for presenting the case as amicus curiae after studying the case very well.
10. In the result we allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant and direct him to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in any other case.
1. Out of four accused arraigned before the sessions court appellant was convicted under Section 302 and Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. A Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. He filed this appeal by special leave and later requested through letter to discharge Mr. S.K. Verma, advocate, whom he engaged earlier. Thereafter, we appointed Ms. Karthika S., advocate as amicus curiae to argue for the appellant.
2. We heard today the detailed arguments of Ms. Karthika S. and Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned Additional Solicitor General.
3. The story of the prosecution, in brief, is the following:
On 13.1.1986, there was a dance in connection with the celebration of Lohri festival. By about 8.00 p.m., appellant along with others wanted to dance in the company of ladies but was dissuaded from doing so by others. So, he left that venue in a huff. This happened at about 9.00 p.m. About one and a half hours thereafter, while the persons who participated in the dance, including deceased Shyam Lal, were proceeding to Chandni Chowk they were surrounded by a large number of persons including the four accused. The assailants attacked the deceased and PW-1 among which the appellant inflicted stab injuries on the deceased. He sustained incised wound among which one was on the left side of the chest and another one was on the abdomen. The injury which he sustained on the chest was on the anterior auxiliary line and the posterior auxiliary line. Surgical emphysema was present and air entry was diminished in the left side. He was taken to the Hindu Rao Hospital, where he was operated upon, but on 16.1.1986 he succumbed to the injuries.
4. As the sessions court and the High Court found that Shyam Lal sustained fatal injuries, we are not disposed to conduct any further probe as to whether it is a case of homicide. The only question is, whether appellant was among the many assailants who gave fatal injuries to the deceased.
5. The solitary witness to support the case against the appellant is PW-1 (Surinder Kumar). He himself was injured and, therefore, his presence at the spot cannot be doubted. But an aspect against the witness is that he was admittedly in an inebriated condition then. He was taken to the Hospital at 10.30 in the night and the doctor, who examined him certified that alcohol was smelt in his breath and the doctor advised that he would be in a position to give a statement only by 12.50 a.m.
6. Apparently, PW-1 is not a witness who can be included within the category of “wholly reliable” witnesses. He would not have been in a position to grasp the entire gamut of the incident with all details at the time when the incident happened because of his peculiar condition then as the visibility was also slightly affected. We must bear in mind that the incident happened at night and there was only electric light to provide him visibility. Assailants themselves were quite a large number and who among them gave which type of strike and which portion of the victim was struck etc. are not matters for which the Court can safely depend on the statement of PW-1.
7. Nonetheless, if there could be corroborating materials we would lean to act on the testimony of PW-1, for, nobody can dispute that PW-1 was present at the scene. The Division Bench of the High Court found the F.I.R. as a material for corroboration. But the F.I.R. was supplied by PW-8 who disowned it and he was declared hostile by the public prosecutor. We are told that not even a weapon has been recovered pursuant to any information elicited from the appellant. Therefore, there is complete dearth of any material to ensure confidence in the judicial mind that whatever PW-1 has stated against him was true.
8. A reasonable degree of doubt as to the role played by the appellant in the occurrence exists in the judicial minds. We have to extend the benefit of that doubt to the appellant.
9. We place on record our gratitude to Ms. Karthika S., advocate for presenting the case as amicus curiae after studying the case very well.
10. In the result we allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant and direct him to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in any other case.
