Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-002030 of 2022 |
| Diary Number | 32136/2021 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law—Appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC; Offences under Sections 302 read with 34, 148, 341 IPC; Evidence Act, Section 27; CrPC Sections 161 & 164 |
| Questions of Law | Whether a High Court may reverse an acquittal when prompt FIR, ocular testimony, medical and recovery evidence establish premeditated murder by common intention, notwithstanding minor contradictions in witness statements? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The appellate court must evaluate ocular, medical and circumstantial evidence holistically—sifting grain from chaff—and may interfere with a trial‐court acquittal if motive, credible eyewitness accounts, post‐mortem findings and recoveries under Section 27 Evidence Act combine into an unbroken chain proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Minor inconsistencies or hostile‐witness resiling do not automatically defeat a prosecution case where its core remains unimpeached. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, 1988 Supp SCC 686; Bankim Bihari Maiti v. Matangini Dasi, AIR 1919 PC 157; Abdul Gani v. State of M.P., AIR 1954 SC 31; Kimland Thyrniang v. State of Meghalaya (Div. Bench), affirmed 2025 INSC 1478 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | On 12 July 2007 a schoolteacher was waylaid on his way home, struck by a ninja chain and attacked with sickles by multiple accused. Two relatives (PWs 1 & 2) witnessed the assault, were threatened into hiding, and lodged an FIR later that day. Investigation recovered the broken ninja chain, nine sickles under Section 27 Evidence Act and traced a sniffer dog to one accused’s house. Post‐mortem (PW 28) recorded eleven incised/lacerated injuries matching witnesses’ attributions. Trial court acquitted; High Court reversed and convicted A-1 to A-4, A-10. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts |
| Follows | State of U.P. v. Anil Singh (1988 Supp SCC 686) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that minor contradictions or hostile‐witness resiling do not fatally undermine a prosecution case if its core testimony is credible and corroborated.
- Highlights the duty of appellate courts to sift grain from chaff, valuing the overall ring of truth over isolated inconsistencies.
- Confirms that prompt lodging of FIR, post‐mortem findings and recoveries under Section 27 Evidence Act can jointly sustain a conviction despite earlier acquittal.
- Clarifies that evidence of a hostile witness may be relied upon if it corroborates the prosecution’s case.
- Emphasises that embellishments by untrained witnesses are common and do not warrant outright rejection of their testimony.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Principle of Sifting Grain from Chaff – Citing Anil Singh and Bankim Bihari Maiti, minor embellishments or errors by witnesses do not require wholesale rejection of a truthful prosecution case.
- Holistic Appreciation of Ocular Evidence – PWs 1 & 2 gave consistent accounts of the ninja chain obstruction and sickle assaults; their core testimony was corroborated by injuries recorded by PW 28.
- Motive Established – Prior feuds proved through earlier FIRs (Exts P-38, P-39, P-42) and family‐dispute evidence established animus.
- Documentary and Circumstantial Corroboration – Ext P-2 (written complaint); recovery of ninja chain and nine sickles under Section 27 Evidence Act; sniffer‐dog track to accused’s residence.
- Hostile Witness Evidence – PW 2 declared hostile but his Section 164 CrPC statement corroborated critical overt acts; hostile evidence not outright discarded.
- Medical Evidence – Post‐mortem report detailing eleven wounds exactly matching witness attributions fortified proof of common intention under Sections 302/34 IPC.
- Rejection of Trial Court’s Speculative Doubts – Delay in FIR forwarding satisfactorily explained; absence of thorn‐injuries assessed as witness embellishment not fatal.
- Conclusion – Conviction of A-1 to A-4 and A-10 affirmed; acquittal reversal properly based on unbroken chain of evidence.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners (Accused A-1 to A-4, A-10)
- Challenged reversal of acquittal, pointing to material contradictions in eyewitness testimonies and physical evidence (thorn fence, bloodstain locations).
- Argued that minor inconsistencies and absence of injuries from rolling body negated reliability of PWs 1 & 2.
- A-10 emphasised lack of motive, omission from FIR, discrimination in treatment compared to co-accused, and interested nature of witnesses.
- Contended that the test in Masalti v. U.P. (need for four+ consistent witnesses) was misapplied, and that the chain of circumstances was incomplete.
Respondent No. 2 (Victim’s Widow)
- Defended High Court’s thorough evidence appraisal—motive, ocular, medical and recovery evidence collectively proved common intention.
- Argued minor discrepancies immaterial; prompt FIR and post‐mortem timing precluded fabrication.
- Highlighted corroboration of eleven injuries with overt acts attributed in Ext P-2.
Respondent No. 1 (State)
- Supported High Court’s correction of trial court’s misappreciation.
- Emphasised that High Court sifted evidence correctly and distinguished perverse acquittal findings.
Factual Background
On 12 July 2007, a schoolteacher was attacked on his motorcycle near Kodunkani Vilakku by multiple assailants wielding a ninja chain and sickles. Two relatives (PWs 1 & 2) witnessed the assault but hid under threats. The victim died on the spot; his left wrist was severed. An FIR was lodged the same afternoon. Investigation recovered the broken chain, nine sickles under Section 27 Evidence Act, and a sniffer dog track. Post‐mortem recorded eleven incised injuries matching witness accounts. The trial court acquitted all; the Madras High Court reversed, convicting A-1 to A-4 and A-10. The Supreme Court upheld that reversal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 302 IPC: Defines punishment for murder.
- Section 34 IPC: Presumes common intention where a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
- Sections 148 & 341 IPC: Charges relating to rioting with deadly weapons and wrongful restraint.
- Section 374(2) CrPC: Empowers High Court to reverse acquittal in criminal appeals.
- Section 27 Evidence Act: Permits admissibility of discovery of fact subsequent to confession or indication by accused.
- Sections 161 & 164 CrPC: Govern statements to police and before magistrate, used to examine hostile witnesses.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms Anil Singh’s principle of sifting grain from chaff.