Bombay HC guidelines for investigation and appreciation of evidence for the offence under S 498A of IPC

 The informant is contending that after three months of marriage all the accused persons started taunting her on the ground that she is from village and is unable to cook food. She has specifically stated that on the trifle domestic grounds she was mentally and physically harassed, however, she has not given the details except the said taunting. All the seven persons could not have given taunts at one and the same time. Further, in the entire FIR she has not stated as to why the married sister-in-law and her husband were residing in house of her husband i.e. applicant No.1. In the normal course, the married sister-in-law and her husband would reside at the place where the husband of the sister-in-law is residing. If we consider the address given by the applicants, then of course applicant Nos.5 and 6 are also residing at Aurangabad, but their house is different and in a different locality than the house of applicant Nos.1 to 4. Same is as regards applicant No.7, who is the cousin brother of applicant No.1. Informant has thereafter stated that her husband and parents-in-law were asking her to bring amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for getting permanency in employment of husband with Nagar Parishad. She told them that her parents are poor and unable to give the amount. Then applicant Nos.1 to 3 responded that if she is unable to bring the amount, then she should not come for cohabitation and on that count, she was harassed mentally and physically time and again. Again the acts amounting to "physical and mental cruelty" are not given. Statement that unless she brings the amount she should not come for cohabitation without any action will not amount to mental and physical harassment. When the alleged demand is made has also not approximately stated and for how much period the said demand persisted has not been stated. She then states that she gave information about the treatment given to her and her father who had in turn given that information to their relative. All of them had come and tried to persuade accused persons, but there was no settlement. According to the informant since that date the accused persons intensified harassment. Again the details are lacking. Then she directly states that when she was in her parental house, applicant No.1 went there and abused her. Thereafter, the other accused persons i.e. applicant Nos.4 to 7 instigated applicant Nos.1 to 3 for not to allow cohabitation of the informant with applicant No.1. Threat was given that if she is unable to bring the money then she will not be allowed to stay with them and she would be killed. All these allegations are vague. When that statement was made has also not been stated. As earlier stated it is to be noted that she got married on 24.06.2022 and FIR has been lodged on 24.07.2023. That means the married life of which narration has been given is of just more than one year. Out of that three months she was treated properly and when she returned to the parental home has not been stated. Statements of the witnesses are on the same line. All the witnesses have also kept those facts vague as they are. Neither the details about the alleged cruelty have been given, nor the date on which there was a meeting and when the informant came to the parental home has been stated. The statements of the witnesses are copy paste and it appears that the investigating officer has made maximum use of the computer, of course which is not for good reasons. There cannot be statement in the form of copy paste paragraph to paragraph without difference in punctuations and fonts also. Unnecessarily energy has been wasted in drawing panchanama of the house of applicant No.1 and even photographs have been taken on the mobile and then certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act has been given. {Para 4}

5. We are constrained to observe that police officials are not investigating such cases in the manner they are required to. There is no sensitivity that is shown, nor proper procedure is adopted. Statements in the nature of copy paste is the example of non application of mind by the investigating officer (as he is supposed to apply his mind even while taking statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and insensitivity. They do not make inquiry to the neighbours of the matrimonial home. Statements are always recorded of the witnesses who are either relatives of the wife or neighbours where her parents are residing. Of course the lady would disclose the treatment that is given to her parents and the relatives at the first place and their statements would then be important, however, the other possibilities involved and any other piece of evidence if available is not at all considered by the investigating officers. It is not even necessary that the charge-sheet should be filed against all those persons who are named in the FIR as well as statements of witnesses. If those accused are residing at far away place, then how that accused would have been involved in the commission of the offence should be considered by the investigating officer. It is in the wisdom of the investing officer to file charge-sheet against those accused only against whom there is strong evidence. Unnecessary harassment and false implication should be avoided.

6. In the present case, the FIR is as vague as possible and it is not disclosing the basic ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and, therefore, this is a fit case for exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to avoid the unjust trial against the applicants.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Application No. 3263 of 2023

Decided On: 10.01.2025

Mohd  Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibha Kankanwadi and R.W. Joshi, JJ.

Author: Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:594-DB, MANU/MH/3509/2025

Print Page

Supreme Court: Credibility of injured witness becomes doubtful if injury caused to them is not proved

 The credibility of an injured eyewitness, as has been held by this Court is a tad higher than an eyewitness who has just seen the incident. The very fact that the witness suffered an injury in the same transaction adds to its credibility. On the other hand, when the prosecution fails to prove the very injuries projected as sustained in the same transaction, not only are we unable to concede a greater credibility than that available to a chance witness, but it also makes doubtful their very presence in the P.O. {Para 16}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 558 of 2021, 

Decided On: 28.04.2026

Sadek Ali and Ors. Vs. The State of Assam and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.V. Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.

Author: K. Vinod Chandran, J.

 Citation: 2026 INSC 421,MANU/SC/0412/2026

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances, evidence of hostile witness can be used to acquit accused?

8.4.2. Thus, the evidence of the hostile witness is admissible, once it gets strengthened with the help of other evidence. In Khujji (supra) and in Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai (supra), it was held that it is open to the court to have a conviction upon the testimony of a hostile witness.

9. Therefore, when the testimony of a hostile witness is admissible subject to be feeded by corroboration and the conviction on that basis could be arrived at, the reverse is also true as a canon of appreciation of evidence. What necessarily implies is that as the evidence of a hostile witness can be used for convicting the accused, such evidence could indeed be applied and utilised also for the purpose of acquitting the accused, when what is testified by the hostile witness inspires credibility, when read with the other evidence on record, either ocular or documentary. The dictum would be that the testimony of a hostile witness or statement in the deposition of hostile witness could be properly employed to discredit the prosecution case and a conclusion of acquittal could well be supported through it and could be founded therein.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2506 of 2026 

Talari Naresh Vs. The State of Telangana

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.

Author: N.V. Anjaria, J.

Decided On: 13.05.2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 486,MANU/SC/0473/2026.

Print Page

Admissible Yet Unsafe: CCTV, Gait Analysis, and the Judicial Craft of Electronic Evidence

 In State of Tamil Nadu v. Ponnusamy & Ors., the Supreme Court’s discussion of CCTV footage and gait analysis offers a practical lesson of lasting importance for criminal courts. The decision shows that the law of electronic evidence cannot be reduced to a single question of admissibility. A digital record may be legally receivable in theory, yet still be too weak, too poorly proved, or too compromised in its handling to carry evidentiary weight in practice.

That distinction matters greatly in day-to-day criminal adjudication. Session Judges increasingly encounter prosecutions built around CCTV clips, mobile phone videos, cloned storage devices, extracted pen drives, call data, and expert reports from private or government laboratories. Advocates, in turn, often attack or defend such material at the wrong level. They either argue broad doctrine without addressing the actual source trail, or focus on scattered procedural lapses without explaining how those lapses affect authenticity, continuity, and reliability. The judgment under discussion is valuable because it compels a more disciplined method.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether a Shadow witness can be treated as interested witness if he is acquainted with complainant?

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7 and 13(2) – Illegal Gratification – Trap Proceedings – Evidentiary Value of Shadow Witness – Credibility of Independent Witnesses – The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of an Excise Constable caught in a trap for demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹500 - held that the testimony of a shadow witness (PW-2) cannot be branded as "interested" merely because they are acquainted with the complainant - To disqualify a witness as interested, the defense must provide specific material demonstrating actual hostility.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1105 of 2013

Decided On: 13.03.2026

Raj Bahadur Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pankaj Mithal and P.B. Varale, JJ.

Author: P.B. Varale, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 239, MANU/SC/0228/2026.

Print Page

From Accused to Approver: How to Weigh Turncoat Testimony after State of Tamil Nadu v. Ponnusamy & Ors.

The Supreme Court’s treatment of PW12 (the approver) in State of Tamil Nadu v. Ponnusamy & Ors. dated  May 19, 2026, citation: 2026 INSC 507 substantially refines how trial courts should appreciate approver evidence in a modern conspiracy-cum-murder trial. The judgment both re‑affirms the classic prudential rule of corroboration and corrects some recurring mistakes in how contradictions and “improvements” in an approver’s version are evaluated.

1. The starting point: approver evidence is usable, but with prudence

Print Page

From Barrel to Bench: How a Sessions Court Should Deal With Ballistic Reports in Firearm Trials?

1. Statutory backdrop: expert opinion and ballistics

In cases involving firearms, the court has to form an opinion on scientific matters such as type of weapon, working condition, range of fire, and whether a particular bullet or cartridge was fired from a particular weapon. These areas lie beyond common judicial experience and fall within “science” under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and its successor provision, Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

A ballistic expert is a person specially skilled, by study and experience, in firearms, ammunition, trajectories and related forensic examination, and his opinion is a relevant fact when such scientific questions arise in the trial. However, the evidence of an expert is advisory; it is to assist, not to bind, the court, and must be weighed with the entire evidence on record.

Print Page

Supreme Court : Under which circumstances the omission to seek ballistic opinion and examination of the ballistic expert may be fatal to the prosecution case?

Ratio Decidendi:

When there is direct eye witness account which is found to be credible, omission to obtain ballistic report and non-examination of ballistic expert may not be fatal to the prosecution case but if the evidence tendered including that of eyewitnesses do not inspire confidence or suffer from glaring inconsistencies coupled with omission to examine material witnesses, the omission to seek ballistic opinion and examination of the ballistic expert may be fatal to the prosecution case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2024 

Decided On: 21.02.2024

Ram Singh Vs. The State of U.P.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.

Author: Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Citation: 2024 INSC 128 ,MANU/SC/0125/2024

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances, the court should not convict accused if prosecution fails to adduce evidence of Ballistic Expert In Cases Of Murder Caused By Firearms?

We find that the conviction on the basis of such evidence cannot be sustained. Apart from that, it is to be noted that even according to PW-11, the gun which was recovered from the car had two empty cartridges (Ex. P10 and P11). Furthermore, the evidence of Dr. Rakesh Kumar Goel (PW-5), who had conducted the post-mortem of the deceased, would show that there was no external exit wound, and wad and pellets were preserved and sealed. It is to be noted that apart from not collecting any evidence as to whether the said gun belonged to the Appellant Manjit Kaur, even the Ballistic Expert has not been examined to show that the wad and pellets were fired from the empty cartridges (Ex. P10 and P11). {Para 22}

23. It will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab   MANU/SC/0305/1995 : (1995) 3 SCC 367:

21. .........It hardly needs to be emphasised that in cases where injuries are caused by firearms, the opinion of the ballistic expert is of a considerable importance where both the firearm and the crime cartridge are recovered during the investigation to connect an Accused with the crime. Failure to produce the expert opinion before the trial court in such cases affects the creditworthiness of the prosecution case to a great extent.

24. No doubt that this case has been recently distinguished by a three-Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Gulab v. State of Uttar Pradesh MANU/SC/1210/2021 : (2022) 12 SCC 677, relying on the earlier judgments of this Court in the cases of Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab   MANU/SC/0136/1962 : [1963] 3 SCR 585 and State of Punjab v. Jugraj Singh   MANU/SC/0098/2002 : (2002) 3 SCC 234.

25. However, it is to be noted that the case of Jugraj Singh (supra) was a case of direct evidence, where there was evidence of two eye-witnesses. The present case is a case based on circumstantial evidence. In view of the serious doubt with regard to the credibility of the witnesses on the issue of extra-judicial confession and last seen theory, the failure to examine Ballistic Expert would, in our opinion, be a glaring defect in the prosecution case. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and, as such, the Accused are entitled to benefit of doubt.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1635 of 2010 and 1714 of 2010 

Decided On: 05.07.2023

Pritinder Singh Vs. The State of Punjab

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Author: B.R. Gavai, J.

Citation: 2023 INSC 614, MANU/SC/0754/2023.

Print Page

How session judge should appreciate multiple dying declaration?

 You can explain it in interview as a simple filtering process: first see whether each dying declaration is trustworthy by itself, then compare them with each other, and finally check which one fits the medical and surrounding evidence. If they are consistent, they can be relied on; if they materially contradict each other, the court should look for corroboration and may prefer a trustworthy Magistrate-recorded declaration.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether the court can rely on recovery of articles of Victim as per statement of accused U/S 27 of Evidence Act if relatives of victim have not testified that those articles were belonging to Victim?

 In the preceding paragraph, we have considered the law laid down by this Court on that issue. Let us now consider the circumstances in which the recovery was made from the locations as disclosed. It cannot be questioned that such recovery would be relevant since the Appellant-convict could have affected the recovery only if he had specific knowledge of the location. This, however, in our view, is not sufficient to take the recovery of the objects as a circumstance against the Appellant convict. This we say for the reason that the objects recovered also have to be verified and tested. Now, this was not done. His statement is said to have led to the recovery of - (i) a sickle, (ii) a jute bag, (iii) a green coloured lungi, (iv) a blue colour checked shirt, and (v) a red and yellow colour striped towel from his house. {Para 26} 

27. How any and/or all of these articles related to the alleged murder of two victims and rape of one of them is undemonstrated from the record. None of the relatives of either D1 or D2 have testified to any of these belongings being that of the victims.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1672 of 2019 

Decided On: 15.07.2025

Kattavellai Vs. State of Tamilnadu

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 845, MANU/SC/0917/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court explains the law relating to last seen theory

 Circumstance Two: Last Seen Theory

15. The next circumstance that is to consider is the last seen theory. It is well established that this is a weak piece of evidence and cannot be the sole basis of conviction.7 We may further refer to certain judgments that expand upon the application of this theory.

15.1 In Ravasaheb v. State of Karnataka   MANU/SC/0248/2023 : 2023:INSC:238 : (2023) 5 SCC 391, a three Judge Bench (which included two of us, Nath and Karol JJ.) observed thus:

29. On its own, last seen theory is considered to be a weak basis for conviction. However, when the same is coupled with other factors such as when the deceased was last seen with the Accused, proximity of time to the recovery of the body of the deceased, etc. The Accused is bound to give an explanation Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872. If he does not do so, or furnishes what may be termed as wrong explanation or if a motive is established - pleading securely to the conviction of the Accused closing out the possibility of any other hypothesis, then a conviction can be based thereon. [Satpal v. State of Haryana [Satpal v. State of Haryana,   MANU/SC/0492/2018 : 2018:INSC:436 : (2018) 6 SCC 610] and Ram Gopal v. State of M.P. [Ram Gopal v. State of M.P.,   MANU/SC/0139/2023 : 2023:INSC:133 : (2023) 5 SCC 534]]

[See also: Sanjay v. State of U.P.   MANU/SC/0312/2025 : 2025:INSC:317]

15.2 The application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, doesn't absolve the prosecution of its duty to establish its case against the Accused, beyond reasonable doubt. [See: Sawal Das v. State of Bihar   MANU/SC/0201/1974 : 1974:INSC:4 : (1974) 4 SCC 193 and Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra   MANU/SC/0136/2021 : 2021:INSC:136 : (2021) 5 SCC 626]

15.3 In applying the last-seen theory, Courts should keep in mind the totality of the circumstances, or the case put forward by the prosecution. In other words, also to be seen is, what preceded and followed the Accused person being last seen with the deceased. [See: Surajdeo Mahto v. State of Bihar   MANU/SC/0505/2021 : 2021:INSC:379 : (2022) 11 SCC 800]

15.4 In Veerendra v. State of M.P.   MANU/SC/0641/2022 : 2022:INSC:565 : (2022) 8 SCC 668, referring to Nizam (supra) it was observed that when the time between the 'last seen' and the 'time of occurrence' is significant, conviction thereon would not be advisable or sustainable.

15.5 The converse of the above is that the theory comes into play "where the time gap between the point of time when the Accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the Accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible." [See: Bodhraj v. State of J&K MANU/SC/1463/2002 : (2002) 8 SCC 45, State of U.P. v. Shyam Behari   MANU/SC/1093/2009 : 2009:INSC:432 : (2009) 15 SCC 548 and Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar v. State of Gujarat MANU/SC/1349/2024 : 2024:INSC:987 : (2025) 2 SCC 399]

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1672 of 2019 

Decided On: 15.07.2025

Kattavellai Vs. State of Tamilnadu

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 845, MANU/SC/0917/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court Guidelines Regarding procedure to be followed regarding DNA evidence from the point of collection to the logical end, i.e., conviction or acquittal of the Accused,

 This lack of a common procedure to be followed, is concerning. As such, we issue the following directions which shall be followed henceforth, in all cases where DNA Evidence is involved:

1. The collection of DNA samples once made after due care and compliance of all necessary procedure including swift and appropriate packaging including a) FIR number and date; b) Section and the statute involved therein; c) details of I.O., Police station; and d) requisite serial number shall be duly documented. The document recording the collection shall have the signatures and designations of the medical professional present, the investigating officer and independent witnesses. Here only we may clarify that the absence of independent witnesses shall not be taken to be compromising to the collection of such evidence, but the efforts made to join such witnesses and the eventual inability to do so shall be duly put down in record.

2. The Investigating Officer shall be responsible for the transportation of the DNA evidence to the concerned police station or the hospital concerned, as the case may be. He shall also be responsible for ensuring that the samples so taken reach the concerned forensic science laboratory with dispatch and in any case not later than 48- hours from the time of collection. Should any extraneous circumstance present itself and the 48-hours timeline cannot be complied with, the reason for the delay shall be duly recorded in the case diary. Throughout, the requisite efforts be made to preserve the samples as per the requirement corresponding to the nature of the sample taken.

3. In the time that the DNA samples are stored pending trial appeal etc., no package shall be opened, altered or resealed without express authorisation of the Trial Court acting upon a statement of a duly qualified and experienced medical professional to the effect that the same shall not have a negative impact on the sanctity of the evidence and with the Court being assured that such a step is necessary for proper and just outcome of the Investigation/Trial.

4. Right from the point of collection to the logical end, i.e., conviction or acquittal of the Accused, a Chain of Custody Register shall be maintained wherein each and every movement of the evidence shall be recorded with counter sign at each end thereof stating also the reason therefor. This Chain of Custody Register shall necessarily be appended as part of the Trial Court record. Failure to maintain the same shall render the I.O. responsible for explaining such lapse.

The Directors General of Police of all the States shall prepare sample forms of the Chain of Custody Register and all other documentation directed above and ensure its dispatch to all districts with necessary instruction as may be required. {Para 44}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1672 of 2019 

Decided On: 15.07.2025

Kattavellai Vs. State of Tamilnadu

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 845, MANU/SC/0917/2025.

Print Page

When Eyes Speak and Science Checks: Ocular vs Medical Evidence in Criminal Trials

 In criminal trials, courts often face a recurring question: what should prevail when eyewitness testimony conflicts with medical evidence? The answer is not mechanical. Indian courts have consistently held that credible ocular evidence ordinarily carries primacy, while medical evidence generally plays a corroborative role. At the same time, when medical evidence completely rules out the prosecution’s eyewitness version and renders it impossible or wholly improbable, the court must approach the ocular version with great caution.

The basic rule

Print Page

SC Acquits Woman Accused Of Killing New Born Baby Girl

 By considering the oral evidence on record and taking into consideration the post-mortem report, the Appellant was convicted for the offence by attributing motive that she has strangulated her because the new born is a baby girl. There is no evidence on record to draw such a conclusion against the Appellant. It is clear from the evidence on record, as deposed by PW-7, they already had a male child of the age of 5 years. He has also stated that as they already had a male child, they wanted a female child to complete the family. He further stated that his brother had three daughters which shows that the family was not orthodox and was not averse to have a female child. It is clear from the evidence on record that immediately after birth the baby was put in incubator with oxygen mask and it is also clear that she has not opened the eyes and she did not cry. PW-7, though he was declared hostile by the prosecution, but he has stated in his deposition that he was called to the labour room at 05:00 p.m. to inform that his baby had expired and he was not allowed to see her wife who is the Appellant herein upto 26th August 2007 on which date dead body of the baby girl was sent for post-mortem. It is also to be noticed that there is no reason for sending the body for post-mortem on 26th August when the baby girl died on 24th August 2007. At the same time, it is also to be noticed that the crime was registered against the Appellant only on 31st August 2007. It is true that in the post-mortem, doctor has opined that death is due to asphyxia and there were marks of strangulation, but at the same time if totality of evidence on record is considered, motive is not established and it is totally unnatural for the Appellant-mother to kill her own baby by strangulation. It is also clear from the record that in view of the drugs administered on her she was sleepy and drowsy. In absence of any clear evidence on record, High Court as well as the Trial Court committed error, in attributing motive to the Appellant that, she has killed her baby as she was female. The Trial court as well as the High Court has based conviction on presumptions without any basis. It is fairly well settled that to base conviction solely on the circumstantial evidence, unless chain of circumstances is established conviction cannot be recorded. From the totality of evidence on record it is clear that the baby girl was put in incubator with an oxygen mask and she has also not opened her eyes and she did not cry after birth. There was a possibility of natural death. Though the doctor has opined in the post-mortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia but in absence of any clear evidence on record it is not safe to convict the Appellant for the offence Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. As the evidence on record is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the Accused, beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the considered view that the Appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt, for acquittal from the charge framed against her. {Para 10}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1268 of 2013 +

Decided On: 17.12.2019

Manju Vs. State of Delhi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.

Author: R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Citation: 2019 INSC 1385, MANU/SC/1763/2019

Print Page

Bombay HC: How to appreciate prosecution evidence if there is contradiction in evidence of Victim and medical opinion?

The Complainant was specific in the FIR (Exhibit 15) that the respondents No. 1 and 2 assaulted with the axe on his head but used the reverse side of the axe on his right calf. He thus knew the difference between the axe and the reverse side of the axe at the time of immediate filing of the FIR. The Medical Officer-PW7 Dr. Baburao was, however, sure that none of the injuries suffered by PW1 Babu was possible by any sharp edged weapon. The nature of the injuries, as detailed supra, would show that none of the injuries was caused by sharp weapon. {Para 10}

11. PW2 - Siddhu, the son of PW1 Babu deposed that he was one kilometer away from the spot to graze the catties and upon hearing the shout from the field, he reached there i.e. the field and saw the incident. Thus he was to travel for one kilometer on foot and still according to him, he has seen the assault. He has suffered two injuries as detailed supra. Those are swelling and contusion and therefore, possible by fall.

12. Not only this, PW2 Siddhu suddenly brought on record presence of another eye witness Chandu. This was not only the improvement in the prosecution case as is highlighted in his cross-examination but said Chandu was not examined by the prosecution. In the circumstances, when the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken reasonable and probable view of the material before him, in the present appeal against acquittal, there is no need to interfere. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed. The bail bonds, if any of the present respondents stand cancelled.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 607 of 2003

Decided On: 18.06.2015

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Vasant and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.T. Joshi, J.

Citation: 2015 ALLMR (CRI)3649,MANU/MH/2720/2015.

Print Page

Bombay HC: How to appreciate prosecution evidence if evidence of complainant is contrary to evidence to injured witness?

 Evidence of Shivdas, the injured witness, when perused, reveals that at the time of incident, he was present with the Complainant and they were talking with reference to vacating the land upon which they had constructed "Chhappar". When the accused arrived, accused No. 1 was armed with iron bar and inflicted head injury to the Complainant by the same. He further stated that he alongwith Rajendra was given kick blows and fist blows and at the time of incident, number of persons gathered on the spot including Janardhan (P.W. 6), Dilip (P.W. 7), one Balu and others. It is material to point out that evidence of Rajendra (P.W. 1) is totally silent on the said aspect of presence of Dilip, Janardhan and Balu as deposed by this witness. {Para 5}

With reference to evidence of Shivdas on the point of assault, when his cross-examination is perused, his evidence appears to be contrary to the evidence of Rajendra, when he has admitted that prior to the incident, relations between himself, the Complainant on one side and the accused were not cordial as they were not on visiting terms, however, according to Rajendra (P.W. 1), the relations were good. Though according to Rajendra, on the day of incident, he was required to visit Nagar for some work and Shivdas was present in the hotel, Shivdas in total contrast to above evidence deposed that on the day of incident, both of them were running hotel upto 08:30 pm to 09:00 pm.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 427 of 2002

Decided On: 22.04.2014

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Shankar Nana Shende

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.N. Deshmukh, J.

Citation: 2014 ALLMR (CRI) 4008, 2015(2) MHLJ (CRI) 717, MANU/MH/2443/2014

Print Page

Bombay HC: Under which circumstances, prosecution must examine independent witnesses?

 Learned counsel on behalf of the accused has also submitted that this a fit case to draw adverse inference against dropping of Rajesh PW6 and non-examination of his brother Sanjay Mesta who were independent witnesses and in that regard learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of Bir Singh & Ors. v. The State of U.P. MANU/SC/0082/1977 : AIR 1978 SC 59 wherein the Apex Court has stated that although it is true that it is not incumbent on the prosecution to examine each and every witness so as to multiply witnesses and burden the record, this rule will not apply where the evidence of the eyewitnesses suffers from various infirmities and could be relied only when properly corroborated. In this case, there have been two versions given, one supported by the relatives of Ashok PW2 and the other by the persons who were present there, namely, Mahesh PW14, his two brothers and others and in such a situation it was certainly incumbent upon the prosecution to examine the said two witnesses and in the absence of examination this would be a fit case to draw adverse inference against the prosecution for their non-examination. {Para 15}

16. That the injury on Suraj PW1 was accidental is a version given by the accused as well as Madhusudan PW8, though for different reasons. As per the accused that injury was caused when Madhusudan PWS wanted to assault the accused. As per Madhusudan PW8 himself that injury was caused when Suraj PW1 was obstructing the accused from assaulting Ashok PW2, and, therefore it could not have been said to have been intentionally caused to Suraj PWI and on that count the accused could not have been convicted. If the version of Ashok PW2 or for that matter the case of the prosecution could not be accepted thus far, benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the accused as far as die injury to Ashok PW2 was caused.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2007

Decided On: 20.08.2008

Shivaji Gaonkar Vs. State

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.A. Britto, J.

Citation: 2008(4) MHLJ (Crl) 419, 2009 ALLMR (Cri) 359,MANU/MH/1632/2008.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Statement recorded U/S 164 of CRPC is not a substantive evidence and it can be used only to corroborate or to contradict the witness

The learned trial Court accepted the statement made by Prashant PW12 under Section 164 of the Code to the effect that the accused had come out of his shop with a broken glass bottle when otherwise Prashant PW12 had not deposed to any such statement in his evidence before the Court. The learned trial Court accepted such a statement by placing reliance on the case of Sachin Shivaji Kadam & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 2000 (2) MLR 54. As far as this aspect is concerned the law on the use of statements-recorded under Section 164 of the Code appears to be quite well settled in that the said statements can be used only for the purpose of contradiction under Section 145 or for corroboration under Section 157 of the Evidence Act. Learned counsel on behalf of the accused has placed reliance on the case of Gurjant Singh v. State of Rajasthan, MANU/SC/0198/1970 : AIR 1970 SC 1305 wherein the Apex Court has stated that the statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code Could not be considered as evidence but were corroborative of what was stated earlier in the committal Court. Some other decisions on the same point could also be referred to. Generally, statements under Section 164 of the Code are recorded with the avowed hope that the witnesses will not resile from the earliest versions given by them in respect of an incident out of fear of punishment. The Apex Court in Ram Kishan Singh v. Harmit Kaur Anr. MANU/SC/0169/1971 : AIR 1972 SC 468 has reiterated that the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code is not a substantive evidence and it can be used only to corroborate or to contradict the witness. The same is also the view held by a learned Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Lakhan Sheo Charan & Anr. v. State of U.P. MANU/UP/0302/1991 : 1991 Cri LJ 2790 wherein the learned Division Bench after considering catena of cases (more particularly referred to in para 12 of the judgment) came to the conclusion that the statements under Section 164 of the Code cannot be used as substantive piece of evidence. The learned trial Court therefore was not right on relying on any part of the statement of Prashant PW12 as recorded earlier under Section 164 of the Code when such a statement was not adhered to by him in his evidence before the Court, Moreover, Prashant PW12 had clearly stated that he had given such statement earlier because he was threatened by the police. This is another error committed by the learned trial Court. {P ara 8}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2007

Decided On: 20.08.2008

Shivaji Gaonkar Vs. State

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.A. Britto, J.

Citation: 2008(4) MHLJ (Crl) 419, 2009 ALLMR (Cri) 359,MANU/MH/1632/2008

Print Page

Supreme court: What will be impact of Material vs. Normal Discrepancies on credibility of prosecution witnesses?

 In State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and Anr.   MANU/SC/0254/1981 : AIR 1981 SC 1390, while dealing with this issue, this Court observed as under:

In the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies, however honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. {Para 18}

19. The courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy belongs. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so. (see: Syed Ibrahim v. State of A.P.   MANU/SC/8237/2006 : AIR 2006 SC 2908; and Arumugam v. State   MANU/SC/8108/2008 : AIR 2009 SC 331).

20. In Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh and Ors.   MANU/SC/0158/2004 : (2004) 9 SCC 186, this Court examined the issue and held:

Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility.

21. While deciding such a case, the Court has to apply the aforesaid tests. Mere marginal variations in the statements cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 891 of 2004

Decided On: 11.11.2010

Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan, JJ.

Author: B.S. Chauhan, J.

Citation: 2010 INSC 770,2011 ALLMR 288 (SC),MANU/SC/0947/2010.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page