Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P vs Babu Ram on 17 August, 2018
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Appeal No. 226 of 2016
Date of Decision: 07.08.2018
______________________________ _______________________________________
.
[
State of H.P. .........Appellant
Versus
Babu Ram ..........Respondent/accused
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting1? Yes.
For the appellant: Mr. S.C. Sharma and Mr. Dinesh Thakur,
Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Amit
Kumar Dhumal Deputy Advocate General.
For the respondent: Mr. Sandeep Chauhan, Advocate.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of instant criminal appeal filed under Section 378 (3) of the Cr.PC, challenge has been laid to judgment dated 23.3.2015, passed by the learned Special Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 01-ST/7 of 2014 , whereby court below acquitted the accused/respondent of charges framed under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(i), (xi),
(xii), (xvi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that Smt. Vijay (PW1) along with her husband Surender (PW2) filed an application (Ext.PW1/A) with the police station Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, H.P., alleging therein that she is resident of village Mawga and on 30.8.2013, at about 6:00am, when she was going to cowshed for milking cow, then respondent/accused namely Babu Ram, restrained her from going further Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 23:03:22 :::HCHP -2- and started hurling abuses on her. Complainant further alleged that when she made an attempt to move ahead, accused assaulted her with "danda", as a consequence of which, she fell down. Accused allegedly caught her .
from her cloths, as a result of which, her shirt was also torn. Accused also threatened to do away with her life, but somehow, complainant-PW1 was able to rescue herself from the clutches of the accused. In the application referred herein above, she also apprehended danger from the accused and prayed that action under law be taken against him. On the basis of aforesaid application, FIR Ext.PW14/A, came to be registered against the accused. Police also got PW1 Smt. Vijay medically examined and her MLC Ext.PA was obtained. During investigation, when police was conducting the proceedings at the spot and demarcating the spot of occurrence, accused came at the spot, having iron pipe and Kudali and started abusing the police. As per story put forth by the prosecution, accused also attempted to attack the police officials. Accused also abused the complainant PW1 and her husband PW2 in the presence of police officials by calling them by their caste "Koli Kalinde"
and claimed that he will not let the "Koli Kalinde" pass through the common path. Pursuant to aforesaid action of the accused, police added Section 3(i),
(xi), (xii), (xvi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in the FIR. Since accused made an attempt to attack the police officials on the spot, they also called two more police officials to nab the accused, whereafter accused was arrested and police prepared the spot map Ext.PW14/B. After completion of investigation, police presented the challan in the competent court of law, who on being satisfied that prima-facie case exists against the accused, ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 23:03:22 :::HCHP -3- charged the accused for having committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(i), (xi), (xii), (xvi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, to which he pleaded not guilty and .
claimed trial.
3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the prosecution held the accused not guilty of having committed offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(i), (xi), (xii), (xvi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and accordingly, vide judgment dated 23.3.2015, acquitted him. In the aforesaid background, appellant-State has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for conviction of the accused-respondent after setting aside judgment of acquittal recorded by the court below.
4. Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, learned Deputy Advocate General, vehemently contended that judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court is not based upon proper appreciation of evidence and as such, same deserves to be quashed and set-aside. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid argument, Mr. Dhumal, invited attention of this Court to the statements of material prosecution witnesses to demonstrate that all the material prosecution witnesses in one voice stated that on the alleged date of incident, accused/respondent not only gave beatings to the complainant PW1 Smt. Vijay, but also hurled abuses on her as well as her husband PW2. He further argued that it also stands duly proved on record that accused called PW1 and PW2 by their caste "Koli Kalinde" and as such, police rightly booked the respondent/accused under Section 3(i), (xi), (xii), (xvi) of the SC/ST ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 23:03:22 :::HCHP -4- (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. While referring to the reasons assigned by the court below while acquitting the accused, Mr. Dhumal made a serious attempt to persuade this Court to agree with his contention that the accused .
has been let out on very flimsy grounds because if statements having been made by the material prosecution witnesses are read in its entirety, it clearly proves the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and as such, there was no occasion left for the court below to acquit the accused. Mr. Dhumal, further argued that no doubt in the case at hand, no independent witness came to be associated from the village, but there are other material prosecution witnesses other than police officials and as such, learned court below has erred in concluding that prosecution was not able to associate the independent witnesses. Learned Deputy Advocate General while inviting attention of this Court to the medical evidence further argued that it stands duly proved on record that PW1 Vijay Kumari suffered injuries on her person. Lastly, Mr. Dhumal, contended that true it is that in evidence, it has come that there were three paths available for the complainant and her husband to go to their cow-shed, but in the case at hand, PW1 had chosen to go through the land of the accused while going to cow-shed but that could not be a ground for the accused to give merciless beatings to the complainant and call her as well as her husband by their caste. While referring to the statements of official witnesses, who in their statements supported the versions put forth by PW1 and PW2 that at the time of inspection of the spot, accused not only hurled abuses on the complainant and her husband, rather he also made an attempt to attack the police officials, Mr. Dhumal, argued that it ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 23:03:22 :::HCHP -5- stands duly proved on record that accused tried to obstruct the police officials from discharging their duties and as such, he ought to have been convicted, but in the instant case, court below ignoring the ample evidence, .
acquitted the accused, and as such, judgment is not sustainable and accused deserves to be convicted of charges framed against him, as referred herein above.
5. Per contra, Mr. Sandeep Chauhan, Advocate, representing the respondent-accused, supported the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the court below and contended that bare perusal of same suggests that same is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and there is no illegality and infirmity in the same and as such, same deserves to be upheld. While refuting the contention of the learned Deputy Advocate General that prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, Mr. Chauhan, invited attention of this Court to the statements of PW2 Surender, i.e. husband of the PW1-complainant, to demonstrate that bare reading of their statements clearly suggests that story put forth by the prosecution is concocted one and accused has been falsely implicated and as such, court below on the basis of evidence led on record rightly acquitted him. Mr. Chauhan, further contended that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses and as such, court below rightly arrived at a conclusion that prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of alleged incident, complaint Vijay was obstructed by the accused and was given beatings by the accused.
::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 23:03:22 :::HCHP -6-
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case.
7. Having carefully perused material evidence available on .
record, be it ocular or documentary, this Court finds it difficult to agree with the contention of Mr. Dhumal, learned Deputy Advocate General, that court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, rather this Court is of the view that court below has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter meticulously and rightly arrived at a conclusion that prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of alleged incident, accused gave beatings to the complainant and called her as well as her husband by their caste.
8. In the case at hand, though prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as many as 15 witnesses but statement of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW11 are relevant being the spot witnesses. Another witness PW14 HC Islam Mohd., is also said to be present on the spot when the complainant was called by caste by the accused. Remaining witnesses may not be very relevant for the adjudication of the guilt, if any, of the accused.
9. PW1, Smt. Vijay deposed that on 30.8.2013, at about 6:00 AM, when she was going to cow-shed for milking the cow, accused Babu Ram while restraining her from going further started abusing her and assaulted her with "Danda". She further alleged that she suffered injury on her back and claimed that accused caught hold of her from shirt, which was torn and while leaving the spot, accused also threatened to kill her. She further stated before the court below that thereafter, she went to her house and accused ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 23:03:22 :::HCHP -7- was continuously abusing her. She further stated that she moved an application Ext.PW1/A to the SHO, on the basis of which, formal FIR came to be registered. She also stated that she was medically examined by M.O. .
Rajgarh, who issued MLC Ext.PA. It has also come in her statement that when police came to the spot, accused was sitting over the roof of the house but he came to the spot having one Kassi and iron pipe in his hand with a view to assault the police officials. This has come in the statement of this witness that both the police officials ran for the safety and called more police officials from police Station Rajgarh. This witness also deposed that accused was abusing them in the presence of the police in the name of their caste "Koli Kalinde" and saying that he will not allow the "Koli Kalinde" to pass through the common path. This witness further claimed that more police officials reached at the spot from police station Rajgarh, whereafter police took into possession iron pipe Ext.P1 and Kassi Ext.P2, vide recovery memo Ext.PW1/B, in the presence of Sunil Thakur, Sudama Ram and her husband Surender. She also stated that accused was abusing the police and interrupted the police during the discharge of their public functions and at the time of occurrence, nobody from the neighborhood, came to the spot, however, in her cross- examination, PW1 admitted that Bagga Singh, Prakash, Suresh Kumar, Pratap Singh and Attar Singh the Pradhan, are their neighbors and their houses are adjoining to her house. She also admitted that her cow-shed is situated on the Kutcha road Kot-Dhar Baghera, which is at a distance of one kilo meter and three roads lead to her cowshed. She also admitted that one road leads through the land of accused Babu Ram, whereas other two roads pass ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 23:03:22 :::HCHP -8- through the houses of Attar Singh, Miyan, Rama Nand and Daya Ram etc., but these are lengthy roads. PW1 further admitted that two other roads are in Government land and grievance of accused /Babu Ram is that he does .
not allow them to pass through his land and insists us to go to the cowshed through other paths in the government land and due to this, there is a dispute inter-se them. In a suggestion put to her, she also admitted that weapons of offence like Kassi, Ext.P2, Iron rod Ext.P3 and Danda Ext.P-4 are easily available in the houses of every agriculturist. This witness also stated that neither her husband Surender (PW2), Sunil (PW3) Sudama (PW4) and Moti Singh, were present nor they had seen the alleged incident.
10. PW2 Surender Kumar, husband of the complainant, also stated that on 30.8.2013, he was telephonically informed about this occurrence by PW1, whereafter he came to his house and went to the police station Rajgarh alongwith his wife (complainant), where she moved application Ext.PW1/A. He also stated that police visited the spot and when spot was being demarcated at the instance of PW1, he, Sunil Thakur, Moti Singh and Sudama were present. It has also come in his statement that thereafter, accused Babu Ram, came at the spot having iron pipe and Kudali in his hands and started abusing the police and them and also made an attempt to assault the police officials. He also deposed that after seeing the accused, police officials ran for shelter and telephoned P.S. Rajgarh, for more police, whereafter more police officials came to the spot from the police station. He stated that accused was saying that he will not allow "Koli Kalinde" to pass through the common path. In his cross-examination, PW2 admitted that he had not seen ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 23:03:22 :::HCHP -9- the alleged occurrence and had come on the next date. He stated that he was not aware of the occurrence. If the statement of this witness is read in its entirety juxtaposing the statement of PW1, who happened to be his wife, it .
clearly demolishes the case of the prosecution because as per case of the prosecution, entire incident happened in the presence of PW2 Surender. If the cross-examination conducted on PW1 is perused wherein she categorically stated that her husband Surender (PW2), Sudama, Sunil and Moti Singh were not present, nor they had seen any occurrence, clearly suggests that there are material inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of these two material prosecution witnesses PW1 and PW2. PW2 in his examination-in-chief claimed that when police visited the spot and was demarcating the spot, accused came there having iron pipe and Kassi in his hand and started abusing the police. He also stated that when police came to the spot, he, Sunil Thakur, Moti Singh and Sudama, were present, but aforesaid version of him has been totally contradicted by PW1 in her cross- examination. Moreover, this witness (PW2) in his cross-examination himself contradicted by stating that he had not seen the alleged occurrence and had come on the next day. He also stated that he was not aware of the occurrence. In his cross-examination, he feigned the ignorance with regard to the handing over of pipe, danda and kudali to the police by the accused and claimed that he was not present there. He was unable to state that if Ext.PW1/B, Ext.PW1/C and Ext.PW1/D were prepared by the police. On the top of everything, he was unable to state that when the accused was arrested by the police but if his examination-in-chief is perused, he stated that ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 23:03:22 :::HCHP
- 10 -
after the arrival of two police officials from police post Rajgarh, police arrested the accused, which version of him, is in total contradiction with his admission made in the cross-examination. He also admitted that his .
statement was recorded by the police after three days from the date of alleged occurrence and houses of Bhag Singh, Prakash, Suresh Kumar, Pratap and Pardhan Attar Singh Miyan, are situated near his house. He also stated that when the police visited the alleged spot of occurrence, aforesaid persons were not called by the police, nor any statement was recorded. He like PW1 admitted that three roads lead towards their cowshed; first path from land of accused Babu Ram and other two paths in the government land. He admitted that path, which leads to the land of the accused, is a shortcut, whereas others are lengthy. He admitted that they want to use the short cut path through the land of the accused Babu Ram and they are having dispute with the accused regarding the short cut path.
11. PW3 Sunil Thakur deposed that on 30.8.2013, he alongwith Moti Singh, Sudama Ram, Surender Kumar and complainant Vijay Kumari, remained associated with the police in the investigation of this case at the spot and PW1 gave demarcation of spot of occurrence to the police, where the accused restrained Vijay Kumari in the path, abused her and quarreled with her. He also like PW1 and PW2 deposed that when police was inspecting the spot of occurrence, then accused Babu Ram came at the spot having an iron rod and Kassi in his hands and attempted to assault the police officials, who saved themselves from the accused. If the statement of this witness is read in its entirety, it is verbatim as of PW2, but in view of the clear cut ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 23:03:22 :::HCHP
- 11 -
admission made in the statements of PW1 and PW2 that persons namely Surinder, Sudama, Sunil and Moti Singh were not present on the date of alleged incident, no much reliance can be placed upon the versions of this .
witness because his presence on the spot is highly disputed, rather PW2 in his cross-examination has categorically admitted that he had not seen the alleged occurrence. Though in his cross-examination, this witness claimed that he was present at the time of alleged occurrence, but stated that at the time of the alleged occurrence 10 to 12 people had gathered there, but no such fact has been disclosed by PW1 and PW2, rather they in their statements have categorically stated that at the time of alleged incident, there was no one save and except PW1, PW2 and police officials. He also admitted that one complaint was made against him by the accused Babu Ram to the forest department and he was punished and fined by the department.
12. PW4 Sudama, who was associated as independent witness by the prosecution nowhere supported the case of the prosecution, rather he was declared hostile. However, in his cross-examination conducted by the public prosecutor, he admitted that he came to know that the accused took some quarrel with the complainant Vijay Kumari on that day, but categorically denied that complainant had shown the spot of occurrence to the police. He denied that when Vijay was showing the spot to the police, the accused abused and threatened them. He also denied that accused was having iron road and Kudali in his hands and had made an attempt to assault the police officials. This witness further denied that more police officials were called on the spot from the police station by the police officials present ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 23:03:22 :::HCHP
- 12 -
there and the accused was calling the complainant and her family members "Koli Kalinde".
13. Careful perusal of statement made by this witness, nowhere .
supports the case of the prosecution, rather creates suspicion with regard to the story put forth by the prosecution. PW11 Constable Amit Kumar, Police Station Rajgarh, stated that on 30.8.2013, he had gone with HC Mohd. Islam for investigation of this case in the Village of the complainant at Koti Mavga. He also stated that Suniil Thakur, Moti Singh, Sudama Ram, complainant Vijay and her husband Surender Kumar were present at the spot near the house of the accused Babu Ram and complainant-Vijay was giving the demarcation of the spot. He also stated that accused Babu Ram assaulted him with iron rod and Kassi, but this version of him is not corroborated by the versions put forth by PW1, PW2 and PW3 because none of these witnesses stated something specific with regard to beatings, if any, given by the accused to the police officials, rather these witnesses except PW4 stated that since accused made an attempt to assault the police, they ran away from the spot. He also stated that accused was calling them dogs and asking them to get away from the spot, but this version of him is also not corroborated by PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4. He also stated that HC Mohd, Islam telephoned the PS Rajgarh for sending more police to the spot, on which HHC Harinder Singh and Constable Virampal reached the spot. He further stated that accused then tried to run away from the spot towards bushes and fell down and sustained minor injuries. But unfortunately even this aforesaid version of him is not corroborated by PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4. He stated that accused ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 23:03:22 :::HCHP
- 13 -
created obstructions and interruption to them while they were discharging public functions. In his cross-examination, PW11 stated that they reached at the spot around 12:25 pm, which is in total contradiction of timing given by .
PW1 and PW2. PW11 further admitted that there are 4-5 houses nearby the house of the accused and police had recorded the statements of the persons, who were present on the spot. He further stated that complainant, her husband Surender and Sudama remained present on the spot during the entire proceedings for 4-5 hours, which version of him is totally unreliable, false and untenable, because of categorical statement given by PW2 that he was not present on the spot of the occurrence at the time of the alleged occurrence, rather he came next day after being informed telephonically by PW1. No doubt in the case at hand, prosecution with a view to prove medical evidence examined PW5 Dr. Bhupinder Kumar, MO CH Rajgarh, who examined the complainant (PW1) on 30.8.2013 at about 11:35am and opined vide MLC that complainant suffered simple injuries, which is as follows:-
1.On abdomen wall pinkish red bruises were present in linear fashion. There was no hematoma or bleedings.
2.Over the back pinkish red bruises seen in linear fashion.
No hematoma seen.
14. Though injuries, as referred herein above, were termed to be simple caused with blunt weapon, but in his cross-examination, this witness (PW5) admitted that such injuries can be caused by falling on hard surface.
15. Leaving everything aside, medical evidence, as discussed herein above, would not be sufficient to conclude guilt, if any, of the accused, especially when prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of alleged incident, accused gave ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 23:03:22 :::HCHP
- 14 -
beatings to the complainant, and as such, court below had no option but to acquit the accused of charges framed against him.
16. Similarly, it is not understood that why police officials namely .
HHC Harinder Singh and Constable Virampal, who were subsequently called on the spot by the police party, were not cited as prosecution witnesses. Had prosecution cited aforesaid police officials as witnesses, perhaps they would have corroborated/strengthened the story of the prosecution to the effect that when police went to the spot on the complaint of PW1, they were attacked by the accused.
17. No doubt, in the case at hand, prosecution, successfully proved that complainant belonged to the Scheduled Caste category, but interestingly, prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused called the complainant PW1 and her husband PW2 by their caste. Interestingly, Ext. PW1/A lodged by PW1 nowhere contains allegation, if any, of calling complainant and her husband by caste, rather on the basis of aforesaid complaint, police registered a case under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 IPC against the accused, however, subsequently, when police came to the spot accused allegedly called the complainant and her husband by caste i.e. Koli Kalinde and on that basis, Section 3(i), (xi), (xii), (xvi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, came to be included in the FIR, but as has been discussed herein above, version of the complainant is not supported by her husband PW2 Surender Kumar. Prosecution though examined PW3 Sunil Thakur, PW11 Constable Amit Kumar and PW14 Islam Mohd (I.O.), who though made an attempt to prove that when they visited the spot, accused tried to ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 23:03:22 :::HCHP
- 15 -
assault these police officials and in their presence, he called the complainant and her husband as Koli Kalinde, but as has been discussed in detail, PW2 Surender Kumar, has not supported case of the prosecution, rather he in his .
cross-examination categorically admitted that he was not present on the spot at the time of the alleged occurrence. In his cross-examination, he stated that accused did not create any obstacle in his presence.
18. As has been discussed herein above, though police with a view to prove the case that since accused tried to stop them from discharging their duty and as such, two persons were called from the police station, but neither there is any rapat rojnamacha to prove the aforesaid factum nor prosecution cared to cite the two police officials as prosecution witnesses.
19. PW15 SDPO Bhupinder deposed that he had not arrayed the police officials, who had allegedly gone to the spot afterwards nor their statements were recorded by him, meaning thereby, neither rapat rojnamcha with regard to calling of officials on spot was recorded nor their statements under Section 161 Cr.PC, were recorded and as such, version put forth by the police officials that they were threatened at spot by the accused and complainant and her husband were called by the caste, is highly doubtful and cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case and as such, learned court below has rightly arrived at a conclusion that after having perused material, it appears that accused was prosecuted falsely in case. If the statement of PW2 is read, wherein he admitted that he was not present on the spot, it is not understood that how he had been shown in the exhibited documents, rather police has shown him to be present while effecting ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 23:03:22 :::HCHP
- 16 -
recovery. In his cross-examination, he had demolished the prosecution case by stating that he was not present on the date of occurrence and nothing happened in his presence. He has categorically denied that recovery of .
pipe, danda and kudali, was made in his presence, whereas investigating agency had shown him to be present in the exhibited documents, which act of police officials completely falsifies the story of the prosecution.
20. Leaving everything aside, it clearly emerges from the statements of PW1 and PW2 that there are/were other paths available to them for going to their cow-shed, but since path passing though the accused land was short, they used to use the same despite opposition of the accused and in this regard, they had dispute and quarrel at many occasions as has been admitted by these witnesses in their cross-examination.
21. Moreover, it is not understood that how police officials could carry out demarcation on the spot without associating the revenue staff/agency, rather all the material prosecution witnesses including police officials have stated that PW1 was giving the demarcation to I.O. PW 14 and PW15 have categorically stated that they have not taken the revenue officer to the area while determining the possession of the disputed land. Since complainant and her husband have themselves admitted that they intended to use the short-cut path, to which accused used to object, court below rightly came to conclusion that accused was having a right of private defence under Section 104 of IPC
22. Having carefully considered entire evidence as discussed herein above, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Dhumal, learned Deputy ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 23:03:22 :::HCHP
- 17 -
Advocate General that prosecution was able to prove successfully that accused had assaulted the complainant and he had called her as well as her husband by their caste. Prosecution has miserably failed to prove the .
offence, if any, committed by the accused under Section 3(i), (xi), (xii), (xvi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, because neither prosecution was able to prove that accused assaulted the complainant because admittedly there is no evidence that accused assaulted the complainant with an intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty nor there is any evidence worth the name led on record that accused used his position to dominate the complainant, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste category, with view to sexually harass her. Similarly, there is no evidence led on record that accused made any attempt to prevent the complainant from using public path, rather it stands duly proved on record that path intended to be used belongs to the accused, who is recorded as an owner of the same in the revenue record. There is no evidence led on record by the prosecution that land intended to be used by the complainant for visiting the cow-shed was a rasta-share-aam, rather it has come in the evidence, more particularly in the statements of PW1 and PW2, that path in question belongs to the accused.
23. Having closely examined evidence available on record, this Court sees no reason to differ with the finding returned by the court below that no much reliance could be placed upon the statements of PW1 and PW2 and other witnesses being totally contradictory and inconsistent.
24. The Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that since the fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests upon the well established ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 23:03:23 :::HCHP
- 18 -
principle that "no man is guilty until proved so", utmost caution is required to be exercised in dealing with the situation where there are multiple testimonies and equally large number of witnesses testifying before the Court. Most .
importantly, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there must be a string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistency in evidence amongst all the witnesses. In nutshell, it can be said that evidence in criminal cases needs to be evaluated on touchstone of consistency. Reliance is placed on Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in C. Magesh and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2010) 5 SCC 645, wherein it has been held as under:-
"45. It may be mentioned herein that in criminal jurisprudence, evidence has to be evaluated on the touchstone of consistency. Needless to emphasise, consistency is the keyword for upholding the conviction of an accused. In this regard it is to be noted that this Court in the case titled Suraj Singh v. State of U.P., 2008 (11) SCR 286 has held:- (SCC p. 704, para 14) "14. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witness is held to be creditworthy. The probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation."
46. In a criminal trial, evidence of the eye witness requires a careful assessment and must be evaluated for its creditability. Since the fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests upon the stated principle that "no man is guilty until proven so", hence utmost caution is required to be exercised in dealing with situations where there are multiple testimonies and equally large number of witnesses testifying before the court. There must be a string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistency in evidence amongst all the witnesses."
25. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court sees no reason to differ with the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned court below which appears to be based upon the proper appreciation of evidence ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 23:03:23 :::HCHP
- 19 -
adduced on record and the same is accordingly upheld. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merits.
.
7th August, 2018 (Sandeep Sharma),
manjit Judge
r to
::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2018 23:03:23 :::HCHP