Supreme Court: Ordinarily an investigation cannot be started without recording the FIR

The police must have received some information. Why the other information was suppressed by the prosecution has not been explained. In a situation of this nature particularly if an FIR was lodged after recording the statements of the witnesses, another FIR would not be admissible in evidence and ordinarily an investigation cannot be started without recording the FIR.

{Para 25}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 774 of 2006

Decided On: 13.05.2009

Subramaniam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.

Author: S.B. Sinha, J.

Citation: 2009 INSC 805, MANU/SC/0795/2009.

Print Page

Supreme Court: How to ascertain time of death by passing of rigor mortis?

Moreover, the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body on 06.10.1979 at 4.30 p.m., in the report has mentioned that rigor mortis had passed through upper extremities and was present in lower extremities. It is mentioned at page 125 of Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, Edition 1977 that in general rigor mortis sets in 1 to 2 hours after death, is well developed from head to foot in about 12 hours, is maintained for about 12 hours and passes off in about 12 hours. In the instant case rigor mortis was present in lower extremities at the time autopsy was conducted on the dead body after 30 hours. As according to ocular testimony deceased was murdered on 05.10.1979 at about 10.00 a.m. and the doctor conducted autopsy on the dead body on the next day at about 4.30 p.m. after 30 hours of death but rigor mortis was found present in lower extremities. Had he died on 04.10.1979 at about 10.00 p.m. or so rigor mortis would have passed off from the dead body completely at the time of autopsy. Thus the ocular testimony that he was murdered on 05.10.1979 at about 10.00 a.m. stands corroborated from the medical evidence pin-pointing that rigor mortis was present in lower extremities at the time when the autopsy was conducted on the dead body after 30 hours.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 509 of 2006

Decided On: 17.10.2008

Virendra and Ors. Vs. State of U.P.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.

Author: Mukundakam Sharma, J.

Citations: AIR 2008 SC (SUPP) 795, 2008 (16) SCC 582,2008 INSC 1176, MANU/SC/8205/2008

Print Page

Supreme Court: How to appreciate evidence if there is motive for committing murder of deceased?

 There is also enough evidence adduced by the Prosecution to hold that the Appellants had the clear motive to eliminate the Deceased. An illicit/incestuous relationship between Accused No. -1 i.e., Ms. Uma and Accused No. -2 i.e., Mr. Ravi had become known to the Deceased Rajalakshmi & her family, and she had become a stumbling block in the relationship, which swelled the common intention of the Appellants to murder her. The factum that the Deceased has passed away within six months of her marriage also becomes a relevant consideration to attribute culpable intent of the Appellants. {Para 25}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 757 of 2015 and 67 of 2016 +

Decided On: 22.10.2024

UMA and Ors. Vs. The State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Bela M. Trivedi and S.C. Sharma, JJ.

Author: S.C. Sharma, J.

Citation: 2024 INSC 809,MANU/SC/1139/2024

Print Page

Supreme Court: How much weightage is to be given to evidence of doctor conducting post-mortem than to statements made in the textbooks?

 We are disposed to think so when we weigh the medical testimony vis-a-vis the ocular testimony. There is no dispute that the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner as alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eye-witnesses. Unless, however the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eyewitnesses, the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence. It is also true that the post-mortem report by itself is not a substantive piece of evidence, but the evidence of the doctor conducting the post-mortem can by no means be ascribed to be insignificant. The significance of the evidence of the doctor lies vis-a-vis the injuries appearing on the body of the deceased person and likely use of the weapon and it would then be the prosecutor's duty and obligation to have the corroborative evidence available on record from the other prosecution witnesses. It is also an accepted principle that sufficient weightage should be given to the evidence of the doctor who has conducted the post-mortem, as compared to the statements found in the textbooks, but giving weightage does not ipso facto mean that each and every statement made by a medical witness should be accepted on its face value even when it is self-contradictory. It is also a settled principle that the opinion given by a medical witness need not be the last word on the subject. Such an opinion shall be tested by the Court. If the opinion is bereft of logic or objectivity, the court is not obliged to go by that opinion. That apart, it would be erroneous to accord undue primacy to the hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the eyewitnesses' account which are to be tested independently and not treated as the 'variable' keeping the medical evidence as the 'constant'. Where the eyewitnesses' account is found credible and trustworthy, a medical opinion pointing to the alternative possibilities cannot be accepted as conclusive. {Para 13}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2153 of 2011 

Decided On: 10.03.2015

Vijay Pal Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dipak Misra and N.V. Ramana, JJ.

Author: Dipak Misra, J.

Citation: 2015 (2) Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 733, 2015 INSC 194, MANU/SC/0230/2015, AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 1495, 2015 (4) SCC 749.

Print Page

Supreme Court: How to appreciate evidence of prosecution if weapon of offence is not shown to doctor to obtain his opinion?

A very relevant piece of evidence which has been noticed by the High Court, but not given due consideration, is that apart from the blood-stained knife (Ex. P-3) and certain other items mentioned in the letter of Investigating Officer, one sealed cardboard parcel containing blue soaked boiler suit worn by the deceased at the time of incident was also sent to CFSL for examination and opinion. In the said sealed cardboard box, two Exhibits (2a and 2b) were found. Ex. 2a was the dark blue coloured boiler suit and the Ex. 2b was metallic blade fitted in a wooden handle like a knife. The length of the metallic blade is about 5.5 centimeter with one edge sharp and another blunt having a round tip at one end. None of the prosecution witnesses including the Investigating Officer, stated anything as to how and wherefrom the said knife (Ex. 2b) was recovered and kept with the boiler suit in the same cardboard box. This knife (Ex. 2b) also bore human blood-stained matching 'O' group of the deceased. As per the post mortem report, stab wounds on the neck and chest of the deceased might be by the use of the said weapon Ex. 2b. The said knife (Ex. 2b) was not subjected to examination to find out the presence of fingerprints, if any, of the Appellant. The said knife (Ex. 2b) was also not shown to the doctor (PW-19) who conducted the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased, to seek his opinion if the same could have been possible weapon of offence. Even the opinion of the expert witness (PW-22) was not sought as to whether the cuts on the boiler suit could have been caused by that knife. {Para 29}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1300 of 2009

Decided On: 01.07.2013

Majendran Langeswaran Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P. Sathasivam and M.Y. Eqbal, JJ.

Author: M.Y. Eqbal, J.

Citation: 2013 INSC 401, MANU/SC/0631/2013,AIR 2013 SUPREME COURT 2790, 2013 (7) SCC 192,

Print Page

Supreme Court: Weapon of offence must be shown to medical witness and his opinion must be obtained whether injuries were caused to the victim by that weapon

 The same has been again asserted by this Court in Ishwar Singh v. State of U.P.   MANU/SC/0120/1976 : (1976) 4 SCC 355 by observing as under:

It is the duty of the prosecution, and no less of the Court, to see that the alleged weapons of the offence, if available, is shown to the medical witness and is opinion invited as to whether all or any of the injuries on the victim could be caused with that weapon. Failure to do so sometimes, cause aberration of the course of justice. On the basis of the evidence on record it is difficult to say whether the injury to the deceased was caused by the knife with a broken tip which was ceased. These variations relate to vital parts of the prosecution case, and cannot be dismissed as minor discrepancies. {Para 31}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 335 and 336 of 2015 

Decided On: 12.10.2020

Amar Singh and Ors. Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi)

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari, JJ.

Author: Krishna Murari, J.

Citation: (2021) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 784, AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 4894, AIRONLINE 2020 SC 769,MANU/SC/0752/2020

Print Page

Supreme Court: Prosecution has duty to explain whether a sharp-edged weapon is used as blunt weapon if lacerated wounds are caused to victim

The postmortem report prepared by Dr. N.L. Jain shows that on the body of Jagdeo were found three bruises and a hematoma. On the body of Padum were found four lacerated wounds and two bruises. According to the eye-witnesses the two men were attacked with lathis, spears and axes but that clearly stands falsified by the medical evidence. Not one of the injuries found on the person of Jagdeo and Padum could be caused by a spear or an axe. The High Court however refused to attach any importance to this aspect of the matter by saying that the witnesses had not stated that the miscreants dealt axe blows from the sharp-side or used the spear as a piercing weapon". According to the High Court axes and spears may have been used from the blunt side and therefore the evidence of the eye-witnesses could safely be accepted. We should have thought that normally when the witness says that an axe or a spear is used there is no warrant for supposing that what the witness means is that the blunt side of the weapon was used. If that be the implication it is the duty of the prosecution to obtain a clarification from the witness as to whether a sharp-edged or a piercing instrument was used as blunt weapon. {Para 11}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 1970

Decided On: 19.03.1974

Hallu and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M. Hameedullah Beg and Y.V. Chandrachud, JJ.

Author: Y.V. Chandrachud, J.

Citation: Citation: 1974 INSC 60, MANU/SC/0136/1974,

AIR 1974 SUPREME COURT 1936, (1974) 4 SCC 300, 

Print Page

Supreme Court: Lacerated wounds and Contusion are possible only by hard and blunt object and not by sharp-edged weapon

The injuries suffered by the complainant which have been reproduced in the judgment of the High Court show that there were three lacerated wounds and one contusion. One of the injuries that is injury No. 1 on X-ray examination was found to be grievous as there was a fracture. It appears that the prosecution allegation was that a spade (phawra) was used as an instrument for an offence and taking a spade as a sharp-edged weapon the conviction of the appellant was maintained under Section 326 IPC. {Para 2}

3. It could not be doubted that the injuries in the nature of lacerated wound or contusion could not be caused by an impact of a sharp-edged weapon on the human body. Such injuries are only possible by the use of a hard and blunt object. May be that the spade was the instrument of an offence but it might have been used in a manner in which the hard and blunt part of it came in contact with the body of the injured person. In view of the nature of injuries sustained on the complainant the conviction of the appellant under Section 326 IPC could not be sustained. At best he could be convicted for an offence under Section 325 IPC.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 224 of 1978

Decided On: 23.01.1987

Ganga Prasad Vs. State of U.P.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.L. Oza and M.M. Dutt, JJ.

Citation: 1987 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 345,MANU/SC/1059/1987,1987 SCC 2 232.

Print Page

Supreme Court: How to appreciate prosecution evidence if there is discrepancy in oral evidence and medical evidence?

In order to test the veracity of the prosecution witnesses we find that one of the eye witnesses, namely, Waryam Singh has deposed that Gurmej Kaur, the wife of the deceased, who was drawing water from the hand pump when the accused came, ran towards Dharam Singh and fell upon his body in order to protect him from receiving further injuries. At this the appellant Balaka Singh is alleged to have given her a barchha blow on her right hand and the appellant Joginder Singh gave a barchha blow on the left buttock of Gurmej Kaur. According to the evidence of this witness the two appellants Balaka Singh and Joginder Singh appear to have assaulted Gurmej Kaur with a sharp-cutting instrument, namely, barchha and spear. This version is completely falsified by the medical evidence of Dr. Mohinder Singh who examined Gurmej Kaur and who stated in his evidence that all the injuries on Gurmej Kaur were caused by blunt weapon. Moreover out of the six injuries which Gurmej Kaur received on her body not a single one could be caused by a sharp-cutting instrument because there was no penetrating or incised wounds. The injuries were either contusions, abrasions or lacerated wounds. While the witness Waryam Singh says that the accused Joginder Singh had given a barchha blow on the left buttock of Gurmej Kaur, according to the medical evidence it was a lacerated wound deep on the upper and outer part of the left buttock. This, therefore, clearly demonstrates the extent to which the witnesses could have gone in order to implicate all the accused. {Para 10}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 133 of 1970

Decided On: 16.04.1975

Balaka Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Punjab

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.L. Untwalia and S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, JJ.

Citation: AIR 1975 SUPREME COURT 1962, (1975) 4 SCC 511, 1975 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 601,MANU/SC/0087/1975.

Print Page

Supreme Court: When a First Information Report is delayed and is ante-timed and ante-dated, it loses its value

 Investigation of the case was conducted by PW-4 in a slip-shod manner. PW-4 did not explain as to why the original general diary was not produced. In terms of the Police Act, a copy of the statement of the First Information Report is required to be handed over to the informant. First Information Report was required to be taken down in the general diary. Production of the general diary was necessary as the First Information Report was said to be ante-timed and ante-dated. The learned Trial Judge categorically opined the same to be so. No explanation has been given as to why the independent witnesses whose statements had allegedly been recorded were not examined. There was no reason as to why the statement of the PW-2 was taken after such a long time although according to the medical report he was not unconscious as would be evident from the fact that his left thumb impression was taken in the hospital register. If PW-2 was taken within a few minutes to the District Hospital, the doctor incharge must have informed the police. The Investigating Officer does not say so. He had not made any attempt to apprehend the culprits immediately. There is absolutely no reason as to why in a case of grave nature, a copy of the First Information Report was sent to the Circle Officer, 4 days after the incident and to the court 8 days thereafter. Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that the First Information Report should be sent to the nearest magistrate within a period of 24 hours. The incident took place at Gorakhpur which is a District Town. Section 147 of the Police Act and the Rules framed thereunder provide for safeguards for the accused persons from false implication. The legal requirements were not complied with. This Court in Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P.   MANU/SC/0787/1994 : 1995CriLJ457 stated the law, thus:

FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstance in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used, as also the names of the eyewitnesses, if any. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. On account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. With a view to determine whether the FIR was lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, the courts generally look for certain external checks. One of the checks is the receipt of the copy of the FIR, called a special report in a murder case, by the local Magistrate. If this report is received by the Magistrate late it can give rise to an inference that the FIR was not lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, unless, of course the prosecution can offer a satisfactory explanation for the delay in despatching or receipt of the copy of the FIR by the local Magistrate. Prosecution has led no evidence at all in this behalf. The second external check equally important is the sending of the copy of the FIR along with the dead body and its reference in the inquest report. Even though the inquest report, prepared under Section 174 CrPC, is aimed at serving a statutory function, to lend credence to the prosecution case, the details of the FIR and the gist of statements recorded during inquest proceedings get reflected in the report. The absence of those details is indicative of the fact that the prosecution story was still in an embryo state and had not been given any shape and that the FIR came to be recorded later on after due deliberations and consultations and was then ante-timed to give it the colour of a promptly lodged FIR. In our opinion, on account of the infirmities as noticed above, the FIR has lost its value and authenticity and it appears to us that the same has been ante-timed and had not been recorded till the inquest proceedings were over at the spot by PW 8. {Para 12}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1644 of 2005

Decided On: 24.08.2006

Jagdish Murav Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Sinha and Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.

Author: S.B. Sinha, J.

Citation: (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 234, AIRONLINE 2006 SC 577,MANU/SC/8439/2006

Print Page

Supreme Court: Prosecution witnesses having mobile phones not intimating incident to police casts a serious doubt with regard to the genuineness of the prosecution case

Learned Senior Counsel further submits that both P.W. 1-Ali Sher Khan and P.W. 2-Jaan Mohammad have admitted in their evidence that they were possessing mobile phones. She submits that in normal circumstances, after such a dastardly incident had occurred, P.W. 1-Ali Sher Khan and P.W. 2-Jaan Mohammad would have informed the Police about it on their mobile phones. She submits that, however, the same has not been done by them.

{Para 15}

70. Coupled with the fact that though P.W. 1-Ali Sher Khan and P.W. 2-Jaan Mohammad, had mobile phones, they had not informed the Police on phone, also casts a serious doubt with regard to the genuineness of the prosecution case.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 434-436, 442, 437-439 and 440-441 of 2020 

Decided On: 15.12.2021

Jaikam Khan Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.

Author: B.R. Gavai, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1259/2021,( 2021 ) 13 SCC 716.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Non-examination of independent witnesses, though available, would make the prosecution version doubtful.

According to P.W. 1-Ali Sher Khan and P.W. 2-Jaan Mohammad, a large number of villagers had gathered at the spot after the incident. However, none of the independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Since the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are interested witnesses, non-examination of independent witnesses, though available, would make the prosecution version doubtful. {Para 67}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 434-436, 442, 437-439 and 440-441 of 2020 +

Decided On: 15.12.2021

Jaikam Khan Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.

Author: B.R. Gavai, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1259/2021,( 2021 ) 13 SCC 716,

Print Page

Supreme Court explains when death by asphyxia is not made

However, she in her cross examination admitted that if death was caused by asphyxia the eyes would be open and tongue would get protruded and it was likely that the right side of the heart would be full of blood and the left side of the heart would be empty. It was furthermore accepted that at the time of death on account of asphyxia, tardien sport should be found in the eyes and further hypacksia should be found, i.e., the oxygen in the blood pertaining to the atoms would be very much less. The face and head would also be found distended. It was furthermore stated that:

Further there should be mucous in the mouth and throat. Further generally at the time of asphyxia there should be alveonian in the lungs and also idima polute should be found. Further there should be camerine with kolappan with intersenian espeomia. But the aforesaid were not found in the dead body of the deceased in the absence of the aforesaid symptoms there was no opportunity for the deceased to die.

9. We wish the expert would have been forthright in her view in regard to the cause of death. A different conclusion was required to be arrived at keeping in view the fact that a large number of symptoms were absent which ordinarily point out to the cause of death of asphyxia by smothering. Most of the symptoms noticed by Modi should have remained present.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 774 of 2006

Decided On: 13.05.2009

Subramaniam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.

Author: S.B. Sinha, J.

Citation: 2009 INSC 805, MANU/SC/0795/2009,{2010 (1), SCC (Cri) 1392.

Print Page

Supreme court: How to appreciate evidence of doctor who has conducted post mortem if his evidence is self contradictory?

During further cross-examination, PW-8 recognised Keith Simpson as a world authority on medical jurisprudence. But she did not agree with the said Keith Simpson's opinion that Parikh's book is a comprehensive and outstanding book on reference for court work. This reference to Keith Simpson's opinion in Dr. Parikh's book was put to PW-8, to suggest to her that if the hypostasis extends to the head, it may be mistaken as a violence to the neck or smothering as found at page 159 of Dr. Parikh's text-book (4th Edn. 1995). She disagreed with this statement as found in Parikh's book, solely based on her personal experience and not supported by any other authority. While so disagreeing with Parikh's book, she insisted on stating that the horizontal and uniformly hardened and thickened area mentioned by her is injury No. 4 must be due to ligature, even though according to her post mortem report and evidence in the court, she had not seen any ligature marks on the body of Jabeena. {Para 20}

21. The defence has further confronted PW-8 with the statement found in the book "The Essentials of Forensic Medicine" by Dr. K.S. Narayana Reddy to establish the fact, that on decomposition of a body, the gas collects in the subcutaneous tissue and becomes emphysamatous. This would then create a false impression of ante mortem obesity (stout). PW-8 disagreed with this opinion also, without supporting her opinion on the basis of any other authority.Therefore, these suggestions of the defence made to PW-8 cannot be lightly brushed aside. More so, in the background of the fact that PW-8 had conducted the post mortem on Jabeena's body nearly 8 days after it was buried, and admittedly even according to PW-8, the body of Jabeena had decomposed considerably at the time of the post mortem examination. This is coupled with the fact that she has admitted in her evidence that she has no other authoritative text to contradict or support her, as against the statements found in the text books like the "Lyon's Medical Jurisprudence", Parikh's text book on Medical Jurisprudence, The Essentials of Forensic Medicines by Dr. K.S. Narayana Reddy.

23. We are aware of the fact that sufficient weightage should be given to the evidence of the doctor who has conducted the post mortem, as compared to the statements found in the text books, but giving weightage does not ipso facto mean that each and every statement made by a medical witness should be accepted on its face value even when it is self-contradictory.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 345 of 1994

Decided On: 20.07.1999

Mohd. Zahid Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.B. Pattanaik and N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.

Author: N. Santosh Hegde, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0407/1999, AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 2416,1999 (8) SCC 638,

Print Page

Supreme Court: The fresh injuries could be termed injuries within 4 to 8 hours & not more than 8 hours

The High Court noticed the evidence given by Dr. Ram Babu (P.W.6) who had examined the injuries of Nathu Singh (P.W.2) on 21.7.1997 in S.N. Medical College, Agra at 3.50 a.m. Dr. Ram Babu (P.W.6) in his evidence stated that it was a fresh case of stab injuries and injuries were fresh in duration. He further stated that by fresh injuries he meant the injuries caused within 6 to 10 hours. He also found that injuries 1 and 3 were bleeding and caused by one weapon. Fresh injuries are the injuries which are caused within 6 hours. No doubt there may be variation of two hours on either side. Thus the fresh injuries could be termed injuries within 4 to 8 hours and not more than 8 hours. On the basis of the aforesaid, the High Court was of the opinion that since Nathu (PW 2) was examined about 12 hours after the injuries were caused, they could not be described as fresh injuries. {Para 23}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 297-298 of 2002

Decided On: 23.02.2010

State of U.P. Vs. Guru Charan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B. Sudershan Reddy and S.S. Nijjar, JJ.

Author: S.S. Nijjar, J.

Citations: AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 1459, 2010 (3) SCC 721,2010 INSC 116, MANU/SC/0130/2010

Print Page

Supreme Court explains how to appreciate evidence of doctor in criminal trial

We think that this is not a case which should have been summarily rejected by the learned Single Judge and moreover we do not think that the learned Judge was right in observing that "our courts have always taken the doctors as witnesses of truth." Even where a doctor has deposed in court, his evidence has got to be appreciated like the evidence of any other witness and there is no irrefutable presumption that a doctor is always a witness of truth. 

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 1982

Decided On: 22.01.1982

Mayur Panabhai Shah Vs. State of Gujarat

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

E.S. Venkataramiah and P.N. Bhagwati, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0085/1982, AIR1983SC66, 1982CRILJ1972, 1982(1)SCALE523, (1982)2SCC396,

Print Page

Supreme Court: What would be the effect if nail clippings of deceased is not having any blood which could be tallied with blood group of accused?

33. Though with the ruling out of the circumstances relating to the recovery of the ornaments as (sic) been established conclusively, the chain of the circumstantial evidence snaps badly, we find that there are some other circumstances also in the prosecution case which militate against its correctness. Admittedly, the nail clippings of the nails of the deceased had been taken by the police. There was also recovery of the hair from near I the cot where the dead body was lying and the removal of the hair from the scalp of the appellant by the I.O. for the purpose of their comparison. The report of the chemical examiner has not connected the hair recovered from the cot with those of the appellant. There is no material on the record either to show that the nail clipping had any blood, which could have tallied with the blood group of the appellant. Thus, both the nail clippings and the hair have failed to connect the appellant with the crime.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 1985

Decided On: 05.03.1993

Surinder Pal Jain Vs. Delhi Administration

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. A.S. Anand and N.P. Singh, JJ.

Author: A.S. Anand, J.

Citation: AIR 1993 SUPREME COURT1723,MANU/SC/0281/1993,

1993 (3) SCC(SUPP) 681,

Print Page

Supreme Court: Evidence of witnesses about what deceased had told them against the accused about the torture and harassment is inadmissible U/S 32(1) of the Evidence Act

The moot question is: whether the statements attributed to the deceased could be used as evidence for entering upon a finding that the accused subjected Ranjana Rani @ Raj Kumari to cruelty as contemplated under Section 498A, IPC. In our considered view, the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 about what the deceased Ranjana Rani @ Raj Kumari had told them against the accused about the torture and harassment is inadmissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act and such evidence cannot be looked into for any purpose. Except Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, there is no other provision under which the statement of a dead person can be looked into in evidence. The statement of a dead person is admissible in law if the statement is as to the cause of death or as to any of the circumstance of the transactions which resulted in her death, in a case in which the cause of death comes into question. What has been deposed by PW-4 and PW-5 has no connection with any circumstance of transaction which resulted in her death. The death of Smt. Ranjana Rani @ Raj Kumari was neither homicidal nor suicidal; it was accidental. Since for an offence under Section 498A simpliciter, the question of death is not and cannot be an issue for consideration, we are afraid the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 is hardly an evidence in law to establish such offence. In that situation Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act does not get attracted.

{Para 11}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1124 of 2009 

Decided On: 29.05.2009

Bhairon Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Devinder Kumar Jain and R.M. Lodha, JJ.

Author:R.M. Lodha, J.

Citations: AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 2603, 2009 (13) SCC 80, MANU/SC/0908/2009

Print Page

Supreme Court: Public prosecutor putting leading questions to its own witnesses will offend right to fair trial of accused

Leading question to be one which indicates to the witnesses the real or supposed fact which the prosecutor (plaintiff) expects and desires to have confirmed by the answer. Leading question may be used to prepare him to give the answers to the questions about to be put to him for the purpose of identification or to lead him to the main evidence or fact in dispute. The attention of the witness cannot be directed in Chief examination to the subject of the enquiry/trial. The Court may permit leading question to draw the attention of the witness which cannot otherwise by called to the matter under enquiry, trial or investigation. The discretion of the court must only be controlled towards that end but a question which suggest to the witness, the answer the prosecutor expects must not be allowed unless the witness, with the permission of the court, is declared hostile and cross-examination is directed thereafter in that behalf. Therefore, as soon as the witness has been conducted to the material portion of his examination, it is generally the duty of the prosecutor to ask the witness to state the facts or to give his own account of the matter making him to speak as to what he had seen. The prosecutor will not be allowed to frame his questions in such a manner that the witness by answering merely "yes" or "no" will give the evidence which the prosecutor wishes to elicit. The witness must account for what he himself had seen. Sections 145 and 154 of the Evidence Act is intended to provide for cases to contradict the previous statement of the witnesses called by the prosecution. Sections 143 and 154 provides the right to cross-examination of the witnesses by the adverse party even by leading questions to contradict answers given by the witnesses or to test the veracity or to drag the truth of the statement made by him. Therein the adverse party is entitled to put leading questions but Section 142 does not give such power to the prosecutor to put leading questions on the material part of the evidence which the witnesses intends to speak against the accused and the prosecutor shall not be allowed to frame questions in such a manner which the witness by answering merely yes or no but he shall be directed to give evidence which he witnessed. The question shall not be put to enable the witness to give evidence which the prosecutor wishes to elicit from the witness nor the prosecutor shall put into witness's mouth the words which he hoped that the witness will utter nor in any other way suggest to him the answer which it is desired that the witness would give. The counsel must leave the witness to tell unvarnished tale of his own account. Sample leading questions extracted hereinbefore clearly show the fact that the prosecutor led the witnesses what he intended that they should say the material part of the prosecution case to prove against the appellant which is illegal and obviously unfair to the appellant offending his right to fair trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. It is not a curable irregularity. {Para 11}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 1993 

Decided On: 27.04.1993

Varkey Joseph Vs. State of Kerala, 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K. Ramaswamy and R.M. Sahai, JJ.

Author: K. Ramaswamy, J.

Citations: 1993 AIR 1892, 1993 SCR (3) 390, AIR 1993 SUPREME COURT 1892, 1994 AIR SCW 956, 1993 CRIAPPR(SC) 304, 1993 SCC(CRI) 1126, 1993 SC CRIR 587, 1993 (3) JT 421, 1993 (3) SCR 676, (1993) 1 LS 35, (1993) 3 CURCRIR 271, (1993) SC CR R 433, (1993) 2 CRIMES 449, (1994) 1 MADLW(CRI) 176, (1993) 2 ALLCRILR 344,MANU/SC/0295/1993

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether the court can cast burden U/S 106 of Evidence Act on accused if prosecution has failed to prove his presence on the spot of offence at the time of offence?

The evidence of the eye-witnesses when considered in conjunction with the testimony of the doctor does not link the Appellant directly or indirectly with the actual act leading to the unnatural death of the deceased. In absence of any persuasive evidence to hold that at the relevant time the Appellant was present in the house, it would also be impermissible to cast any burden on him as contemplated Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. {Para 49}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 919 of 2013 

Decided On: 03.10.2016

Jose Vs. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Amitava Roy, JJ.

Citation: 2016:INSC:941 : (2016) 10 SCC 519,MANU/GJ/2494/2024.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page