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

Bombay HC: How to appreciate prosecution evidence when investigating officer has failed to secure independent witnesses even though incident occurred in public place?

As such there are major contradictions in the evidence of these five witnesses. What is more surprising is that the Investigating Officer did not get any independent witness in the reservation hall, where hundreds of persons are always present during reservation hours. The argument of the Applicant that a false case has been concocted against him and he has been intentionally removed from the railway platform, where he was running a food stall, appears to be probable. In my opinion, the Applicant has been able to probabilise his case. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses appears to be wholly doubtful. The learned trial court and the appellate court in fact could not have accepted such a contrary evidence of constables and head constable belonging to the same department. {Para 5}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Revision Application No. 149 of 2005

Decided On: 21.08.2014

George Cyriac Maruthukunnel Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: M.L. Tahaliyani, J.

Citation: 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 897, MANU/MH/2748/2014

Print Page

Bombay HC: Under which circumstances, Abuses given on telephone does not amount to offence under SC & ST Atrocities Act?

The informant, her husband and mother were sitting in the court-yard of her house. Then she says that the appellant gave a phone call on her mobile, she told that he should settle the dispute between him and his wife. But the appellant was making grievances against his wife with the informant. She had cut the phone after giving the advise. But, thereafter, according to her, the present appellant was calling her again and again and abusing. She further says that two social workers, who were with her, advised her to put the phone on speaker mode and listen as to what the appellant is saying. It is stated that the present appellant gave abuses in the name of caste to the informant. {Para 5}

14. The fact that is then ought to have been thoroughly considered by the learned Special Judge, Nandurbar was whether the appellant had knowledge about putting the mobile phone on speaker mode by the informant. Certainly when no such document is forthcoming, at this stage, at the cost of repetitions, it can be said that prima facie, the offence under the SC and ST Act is not made out.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2021 and Criminal Application No. 396/2021

Decided On: 04.05.2021

Mahesh Bhikaji Badave Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Citation: 2022(2) ABR(CRI)389: AIRONLINE 2021 Bom 7134, MANU/MH/1270/2021.

Print Page

Whether the court can convict accused U/S 302 R/W S 34 of IPC if he was charged U/S 302 R/W S 149 of IPC?

 Be that as it may, the determination of common intention or common object should primarily be within the domain of the trial courts, and at the most the high courts. It should not be the role of this Court to directly adjudicate issues of common intention and common object. This Court has, in a catena of decisions, elaborated on the differences between Section 149 and Section 34, Indian Penal Code; the overlapping nature of Section 149 and Section 34, Indian Penal Code; and when can the offence Under Section 302 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code be changed to Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. Such decisions do provide suitable guidance for the lower courts to draw from, to reach their conclusions. {Para 21}

22. In this connection, we may refer to paragraph 14 of the decision of this Court in Chittarmal v. State of Rajasthan   MANU/SC/0008/2003 : 2003:INSC:5 : (2003) 2 SCC 266. The relevant excerpt from such decision reads:

14. It is well settled by a catena of decisions that Section 34 as well as Section 149 deal with liability for constructive criminality i.e. vicarious liability of a person for acts of others. Both the Sections deal with combinations of persons who become punishable as sharers in an offence. Thus, they have a certain resemblance and may to some extent overlap. But a clear distinction is made out between common intention and common object in that common intention denotes action concert and necessarily postulates the existence of a prearranged plan implying a prior meeting of the minds, while common object does not necessarily require proof of prior meeting of minds or preconcert. Though there is a substantial difference between the two sections, they also to some extent overlap and it is a question to be determined on the facts of each case whether the charge Under Section 149 overlaps the ground covered by Section 34. Thus, if several persons numbering five or more, do an act and intend to do it, both Section 34 and Section 149 may apply. If the common object does not necessarily involve a common intention, then the substitution of Section 34 for Section 149 might result in prejudice to the Accused and ought not, therefore, to be permitted. But if it does involve a common intention then the substitution of Section 34 for Section 149 must be held to be a formal matter. Whether such recourse can be had or not must depend on the facts of each case. The non-applicability of Section 149 is, therefore, no bar in convicting the Appellants Under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, if the evidence discloses commission of an offence in furtherance of the common intention of them all. 

23. In paragraph 17 of the decision of this Court in Chandra Pratap Singh v. State of M.P.   MANU/SC/1100/2023 : 2023:INSC:887 : (2023) 10 SCC 181, while dealing with conversion of charge from Section 302 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code to Section 302 read with Section 34 thereof, the above passage has been quoted with approval.

24. It would be relevant at this juncture to consider Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On its plain terms, Sub-section (1) of Section 464 clearly indicates that no finding, sentence or order by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in an appeal, confirmation or revision, a claim of "failure of justice" has been substantiated.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1389 of 2012

Decided On: 25.09.2024

Baljinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, JJ.

Author: Dipankar Datta, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1063/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Whether convict can challenge conviction on the ground of conversion of charge if he fails to prove Failure Of Justice?

 In paragraph 17 of the decision of this Court in Chandra Pratap Singh v. State of M.P.   MANU/SC/1100/2023 : 2023:INSC:887 : (2023) 10 SCC 181, while dealing with conversion of charge from Section 302 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code to Section 302 read with Section 34 thereof, the above passage has been quoted with approval. {Para 23}

24. It would be relevant at this juncture to consider Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On its plain terms, Sub-section (1) of Section 464 clearly indicates that no finding, sentence or order by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in an appeal, confirmation or revision, a claim of "failure of justice" has been substantiated.

25. Law is well-settled that in order to judge whether a failure of justice has been occasioned, it will be relevant to examine whether the Accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which he is being convicted and whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him clearly and whether he got a fair chance to defend himself. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision in Dalbir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh   MANU/SC/0320/2004 : 2004:INSC:243 : (2004) 5 SCC 334.

26. Also, it is beyond any cavil of doubt that the burden to show that in fact a failure of justice has been occasioned is on the Accused. The decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Paras Nath Singh   MANU/SC/0973/2009 : 2009:INSC:669 : (2009) 6 SCC 372 can profitably be referred to in this regard.

27. We have no hesitation to hold that based on the above parameters, the Appellants have fairly and squarely failed in their pursuit to demonstrate any failure of justice, which would impel us to exercise power of the nature contemplated in Sub-section (2) of Section 464, Code of Criminal Procedure. We, therefore, see no reason to uphold the contention advanced on behalf of the Appellants to the contrary.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1389 of 2012

Decided On: 25.09.2024

Baljinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, JJ.

Author: Dipankar Datta, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1063/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances prosecution case can not be dismissed for non examination of independent witnesses

 It is also settled law that examination of independent witness is not an indispensable requisite if the testimonies of other witnesses are deemed trustworthy and reliable. Non-examination of any independent witness by the prosecution will not go to the root of the matter affecting the decision of the court, unless other witnesses' testimonies and evidences are scant to establish the guilt of the Accused. {Para 29}

24.3. In Rizwan Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh   MANU/SC/0680/2020 : 2020:INSC:543 : (2020) 9 SCC 627, after referring to the decision of this Court in State of H.P. v. Pardeep Kumar   MANU/SC/0213/2018 : 2018:INSC:166 : (2018) 13 SCC 808, it is observed and held by this Court that the examination of the independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement and such non-examination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case.

(emphasis supplied)

30. It has been rightly pointed out by the Trial Court that the prosecution's case is not that people from the surrounding locality gathered at the time of the incident. In the light of the aforenoted decisions of this Court and upon careful examination of the testimonies of P.W. 3, P.W. 4, and P.W. 5, along with the relevant other evidence on record, the prosecution's case cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of the absence of independent witness.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1389 of 2012

Decided On: 25.09.2024

Baljinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, JJ.

Author: Dipankar Datta, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1063/2024.

Print Page

Whether the court can rely on evidence of the police officer if independent witnesses do not support it?

 The contention that the testimony of the police witnesses could

not be relied upon in absence of corroboration by any public witness, is unpersuasive. Merely because witnesses from the general public that had allegedly assembled at the spot, were not examined does not mean that the testimony of police officials is required to be discarded.

17. In the case of Kalpnath Rai Vs. State: (1998) AIR SC 201, the

Supreme Court observed as under:

“There can be no legal proposition that evidence of police

officers, unless supported by independent witnesses, is

unworthy of acceptance. Non-examination of independent

witness or even presence of such witness during police raid

would cast an added duty on the court to adopt greater care

while scrutinising the evidence of the police officers. If the

evidence of the police officer is found acceptable it would

be an erroneous proposition that the court must reject the

prosecution version solely on the ground that no

independent witness was examined.”

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 Judgment delivered on: 15.09.2020

 CRL. A. 807/2017

SONU @ RAJA  Vs STATE 

CORAM

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Dated: 15-9- 2020

Print Page

What are parameters for appreciating the evidence of chance witness?

 Learned counsel Shri Ghanekar branded this witness as a

chance witness. He argued that this witness could not account for his presence at the spot of the incident. According to learned counsel Shri Ghanekar, the evidence of chance witness is a weak type of evidence and reliance cannot be placed on it. The Honourable Supreme Court, in the case of Sachchey Lal Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2004) 11 Supreme Court Cases 410 has held as under:-

7. Coming to the plea of the accused that PW

2 was a “chance witness” who has not explained

how he happened to be at the alleged place of

occurrence it has to be noted that the said witness

was independent witness. There was not even a

suggestion to the witness that he had any

animosity towards any of the accused. In a

murder trial by describing an independent

witness as “chance witness” it cannot be implied

thereby that his evidence is suspicious and his

presence at the scene doubtful. Murders are not

committed with previous notice to witnesses –

soliciting their presence. If murder is committed

in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are

natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a

street, only passers-by will be witnesses. Their

evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with

suspicion on the ground that they are mere

“chance witnesses”. The expression “chance

witness” is borrowed from countries where every

man’s home is considered his castle and everyone

must have an explanation for his presence

elsewhere or in another man’s castle. It is quite

unsuitable an expression in a country where

people are less formal and more casual, at any

rate in the matter of explaining their presence.

The courts below have scanned the evidence of

PW 2 in great detail and found it to be reliable.

We find no reason to differ.

Even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that this

witness is a chance witness, still the evidence of chance witness cannot be discarded simply he being a chance witness. If his testimony is otherwise trustworthy, the Court can place reliance on it. This witness has assigned reason for his presence at the spot of the incident. He was plying auto rickshaw and owing to a mechanical defect, he had brought his auto rickshaw to Ladke garage and had parked it infront of the said garage. Therefore, this witness has explained his presence at the spot of the incident. His testimony is trustworthy. Nothing adverse to the prosecution could be extracted from this witness.{Para 46}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 268 OF 2014

 Shyamsundar Vithal Pawle Vs The State of Maharashtra 

Print Page

Whether attestation by independent witnesses is necessary for recording information from accused regarding recovery of articles?

The edifice of the argument that information under Section
27 of the Evidence Act should be recorded in presence of
independent witnesses is founded on the perception that the
Investigating Officer might misuse his powers and forcibly extract
the information from the accused in custody. The said
apprehension has no basis whatsoever. Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in the cases of Deoman Upadhyaya (supra) as well as in
the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Damu reported in(25 of 32)
(2000)6 SCC 269; (MANU/SC/0299/2000) held that
admissibility of the information given by an accused in custody
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is based on the doctrine of
“confirmation by subsequent events”. The Section was given
an expansive meaning in Damu’s case in the following words:
“37. The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the
Evidence Act is the doctrine of 'confirmation by
subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the
principle that if any fact is discovered in a search made on
the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner,
such a discovery is a guarantee that the information
supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be
confessional or non-inculcator in nature, but if it results in
discovery of a fact it becomes a reliable information.
Hence the legislature permitted such information to be
used as evidence by restricting the admissible portion to
the minimum. It is now well-settled that recovery of an
object is not discovery of a fact as envisaged in the
section. The decision of Privy Council in Pullukurn Kottayya
v. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67 as the most quoted authority
for supporting the interpretation that the "fact discovered"
envisaged in the Section embraces the place from which
the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as
to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to
that effect.”
In view of the fact that the information becomes admissible
only to the extent of the part leading to the discovery of a fact,
the subsequent confirmation gives a guarantee about the sanctity
of such information. The facts discovered should be such which
are in exclusive knowledge of the accused and none else. If the
Investigating Officer, after recording information under Section 27
of the Evidence Act from an accused in his custody, recovers
some incriminating article from an open place accessible to all(26 of 32)
and sundry, the information and the discovery would loose
significance. Likewise, if the fact discovered is known to the
Investigating Officer in advance, then the discovery made in
furtherance of the subsequent information recorded under Section
27 at the instance of the accused would be inconsequential. The
only logical conclusion in these circumstances is that there is no
legal requirement of seeking attestation of the information
received from the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
by independent witnesses. Attestation if any would be required
when discovery of the fact is made and memo thereof prepared.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.K.Basu Vs.
State of West Bengal reported in (1997)1 SCC 416;
(MANU/SC/0157/1997), gave numerous directions to be
followed as preventive measures in all cases of arrest and or
detention. The direction at Sr.No.10 of the said judgment is that
the arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during
investigation though not throughout the investigation.
The entire endeavour of the learned counsel, who argued in
favour of the proposition that witnesses should be kept present to
attest the information memo prepared under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act, was based on the perception that the Investigating
Officer may indulge into use of force and third degree methods
for extracting the confession. The directions given by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in D.K.Basu’s Judgment (supra) and the
consequent amendments brought around in the Cr.P.C.
particularly Sections 41-A, 41-B, 41-D, 50, 50-A, 53 and 54 are(27 of 32)
sufficient to alleviate these perceptions and apprehensions.
Furthermore, the accused, by leading appropriate evidence can
always challenge the sanctity of information recorded under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act if such information is recorded
under threat, duress or by coercion. It is essential to note that in
the entire framework of Code of Criminal Procedure, which
governs the process of investigation, there is no requirement of
keeping witnesses present at the time of recording information of
the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
In the case of A.R.Antulay Vs. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak
reported in AIR 1984 SC 718; (MANU/SC/0082/1984), the
Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the
absence of a specific provision made in the statute indicating that
offences will have to be investigated, inquired into, tried and
otherwise dealt with according to that statute, the same will have
to be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with
according to the Criminal Procedure Code.
In other words, Criminal Procedure Code is the parent
statute which provides for investigation, inquiry and trial of cases
by Criminal Courts of various designations and there is no
provision in the Cr.P.C. requiring attestation of the information
recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by independent
witnesses.
Reportable
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 94 / 2017
State of Rajasthan

V
Mangal Singh 

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence of chance witness?

The High Court has attached a lot of weight to the evidence of the
said Madho Singh (PW 9) as he is an independent witness. On
perusal of the record, it appears that the said person already had
deposed for the victim family on a number of previous occasions, that
too against the same accused. This being the fact, it is important to
analyze the jurisprudence on interested witness. It is a settled
principle that the evidence of interested witness needs to be
scrutinized with utmost care. It can only be relied upon if the evidence
has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy. Here we
may refer to chance witness also. It is to be seen that although the
evidence of a chance witness is acceptable in India, yet the chance
witness has to reasonably explain the presence at that particular
point more so when his deposition is being assailed as being tainted.
19. A contradicted testimony of an interested witness cannot be usually
treated as conclusive. The said Madho Singh (PW 9) has admitted
that he has been a witness in another case against the accused for
the deceased. Here it is to be seen that the said Madho Singh
(PW 9) has been acting as a pocket witness for the family.
Further, the credibility of this independent witness can be
challenged on the fact that the commotion was only heard by the
said Madho Singh (PW 9) whereas the rest of the members of the
locality did not come for help. As Madho Singh (PW 9) is a chance
witness as well as an interested witness herein, causes suspicion and
does not inspire confidence. This admission by Madho Singh (PW 9)
not only forces us to doubt the veracity of his own deposition but also
has created doubts on the version of Gambhir Singh (PW 7).
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1141 OF 2007
MAHAVIR SINGH 
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
Citation:(2016) 10 SCC220
Dated:NOVEMBER 09, 2016

Print Page

Whether prosecution case can be disbelieved on the ground that independent witness is not examined?

 As far as the non-examination of any other independent witness
is concerned, there is no doubt that the prosecution has not been
able to produce any independent witness. But, the prosecution case
cannot be doubted on this ground alone. In these days, civilized
people are generally insensitive to come forward to give any
statement in respect of any criminal offence. Unless it is inevitable,
people normally keep away from the Court as they feel it distressing
and stressful. Though this kind of human behaviour is indeed
unfortunate, but it is a normal phenomena. We cannot ignore this
handicap of the investigating agency in discharging their duty. We
cannot derail the entire case on the mere ground of absence of
independent witness as long as the evidence of the eyewitness,
though interested, is trustworthy.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1467-1468 OF 2005
SADHU SARAN SINGH 
V
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
Dated;FEBRUARY 26, 2016
N.V. RAMANA, J.
Citation;(2016) 4 SCC357

Print Page

Whether prosecution case can be thrown out on the ground that independent witness is not examined?

In Appabhai & Anr. v. State of Gujarat AIR 1988 SC 696, this court dealt with the issue of non-examining the independent witnesses and held as under:

“The prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether -in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties.”

The principle of law laid down hereinabove is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, mere non-joining of an independent witness where the evidence of the prosecution witnesses may be found to be cogent, convincing, creditworthy and reliable, cannot cast doubt on the version forwarded by the prosecution if there seems to be no reason on record to falsely implicate the appellants.

Supreme Court of India

Gian Chand & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 23 July, 2013

Bench: B.S. Chauhan, S.A. Bobde

Citation;(2013)14 SCC 420

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence of independent witness in food adulteration case?

Referring back to witness Shyam Lal, just because the Food Inspector-PW-3 knew Shyam Lal from one year prior to the incident, he cannot be termed to be an interested witness. Shyam Lal, PW-3 has specifically admitted that the sample was taken in his presence and the sample was sealed in his presence. Although he has said that the accused had no measuring instrument, but the factum that 660 ml milk was sold to the Food Inspector for Rs. 2/- itself goes to show that he had sold a definite quantity of milk to the Food Inspector. 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 898 of 1988 

Revisionist :- Ram Singh 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. 
Citation; 2015 CRLJ(NOC)396 ALL
Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya,J. 

Print Page