Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-000116-000116 – 2012 |
| Diary Number | 39492/2010 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedents on witness-evaluation and benefit of doubt |
| Type of Law | Criminal law; Evidence appreciation; Appellate powers under Article 142 |
| Questions of Law | Whether convictions under Section 302 IPC can stand when the FIR’s stated genesis and venue are materially contradicted by eyewitness testimony and the site-inspection plan, rendering that testimony unsafe. |
| Ratio Decidendi (3–8 sentences) | The Court held that when the genesis and place of the occurrence as recorded in the FIR are materially altered by eyewitnesses at trial, their evidence becomes wholly or partly unreliable. Material omissions—such as failing to mention a family-member eyewitness in the FIR—and contradictions with the site-inspection plan lead to grave doubts. Under the Vadivelu Thevar categorisation of witnesses, uncorroborated testimony that conflicts with documentary evidence cannot support a safe conviction. In such circumstances, the benefit of doubt must be granted. The Court further exercised its discretionary power under Article 142 to extend acquittal to co-accused who did not approach this Court. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras (AIR 1957 SC 614); Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan (2016 16 SCC 192); Bhagwan Sahai & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 2016 SC 2714) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts |
| Follows | Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras; Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan; Bhagwan Sahai & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Material changes in the genesis or venue of an offence between FIR and trial testimony render eyewitnesses wholly or partly unreliable.
- Omission of a declared eyewitness’s name from the FIR—when that person claims to have seen the assault—undermines the prosecution’s case.
- Contradictions between oral testimony and the site-inspection plan demand strict scrutiny and often preclude safe conviction.
- Uncorroborated testimony placing the accused at the scene in low-light conditions is suspect if no source of illumination is recorded.
- The Supreme Court may invoke Article 142 to extend acquittal benefits to co-accused who have not personally appealed, to secure ends of justice.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Categorisation of Witnesses
- Adopted Vadivelu Thevar principle: evidence must be judged on quality, not quantity.
- Determined one eyewitness (PW-12) wholly unreliable on account of contradictions with the FIR and his own conduct.
- Found the second eyewitness (PW-5) only partially reliable due to self-serving contradictions and failures to mention co-witness.
-
Material Contradictions
- FIR alleged attack began during hut-demolition; witnesses placed it by a house or in a field.
- Site-inspection plan—attested by PW-5—recorded only the field, contradicting PW-5’s own testimony about the house.
-
Omissions in FIR
- PW-12’s proximity and relation to the victim made omission of his name in the FIR a material defect.
-
Inadequate Corroboration
- Medical evidence proved homicidal death but did not corroborate who wielded which weapon, given lack of illumination.
-
Benefit of Doubt and Article 142
- Following Pankaj and Bhagwan Sahai, suppression of origin and manner of occurrence entitles accused to doubt.
- Exercised Article 142 to acquit co-accused not before this Court, securing complete justice.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant (Kannaiya)
- Prosecution case fabricated; first informant and original occupant hostile at trial.
- Eyewitnesses PW-12 and PW-5 gave contradictory accounts on place and genesis, failing to fix weapons or motive.
- Six similarly placed co-accused were acquitted at trial on identical evidence; appellant entitled to parity.
Respondent (State of Madhya Pradesh)
- Independent eyewitnesses (PW-5, PW-12) had no motive to lie and withstood cross-examination.
- Their testimony on weapons and injuries was corroborated by medical reports.
- Trial and High Courts correctly appreciated evidence; appeal ought to be dismissed.
Factual Background
In September 1990, the victim was attacked and fatally injured by a group of ten persons named in an FIR lodged by the victim’s father. Medical reports confirmed multiple sharp- and blunt-instrument wounds leading to death. The trial Court convicted four accused under Section 302 IPC; six were acquitted. The High Court affirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined material contradictions between the FIR, the site-inspection plan, and trial testimony, and found both eyewitnesses unreliable or partly unreliable. It therefore granted benefit of doubt and acquitted all four, extending relief to co-accused under Article 142.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 302, 34 IPC (homicide and common intention) were the substantive offences.
- CrPC Section 374(2) governed appeals from High Court reversals.
- Article 142 of the Constitution was invoked to extend acquittal to co-accused who did not appeal.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions were recorded; both members of the Bench concurred in full.
Procedural Innovations
- First recorded use, in this context, of Article 142 to acquit co-accused who did not personally file appeals, ensuring holistic justice.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed