Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the only witness who tends to support the prosecution case is PW14 Subodh Kumar. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, this witness is not an eyewitness at all. His conduct was unnatural and his antecedents were also suspect. Consequently, it was submitted that he cannot be relied upon at all. It was submitted that PW14 allegedly knew the deceased Surinder Gupta and was an alleged chance witness. Yet, when the incident took place, he did not come forward to help Surinder Gupta at all nor did he raise any alarm or call for help or go to the police station. He merely stood there and saw the crime being committed. After the assailants had left, he is alleged to have helped PW1 Ashok Choudhary in lifting the injured Surinder Gupta onto the car. Thereafter, he is alleged to have left on foot to inform the father of the injured Surinder Gupta, who resided at their old house at Bhogal, which was about 15-20 minutes away (walking distance). Apparently, he stopped on the way at Bhanu Garments, which was a shop belonging to Surinder Gupta's brother. But, when, according to him, he reached the said shop, they were aware of the incident. Yet, the said PW14 proceeds towards Bhogal. This conduct of the said PW14 Subodh Kumar has been alleged to be unnatural by the learned counsel for the appellants and it is because of this that they seek to discredit and besmirch his testimony.

34. As can be noticed from the above extracts, in the case of Rana Pratap (supra), the Supreme Court aptly observed that murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses soliciting their presence. The Supreme Court also noted that the evidence of a chance witness cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion merely because he/ she is a chance witness. In this light, it was argued on behalf of the State that the testimony of PW14 Subodh Kumar cannot be discarded merely because he happened to be there. We may also point out that in Rana Pratap (supra), the Supreme Court also observed that every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, some become speechless and stand rooted to the spot, some become hysterical and start wailing, some start shouting for help, others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible and yet others rush to the rescue of the victim and even go to the extent of counter-attacking the assailants. Importantly, the Supreme Court observed that "everyone reacts in his own special way". It also noted that "there is no set rule of natural reaction". The Supreme Court also observed that to discard the evidence of witnesses on the ground that they did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way. These observations were relied upon by the learned counsel for the State to counter the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants with regard to the so-called unnatural conduct of PW14 Subodh Kumar in not raising any cry for help or in not going to the police station or in not rushing forward to help the victim Surinder Gupta. It is obvious that, as observed by the Supreme Court in Rana Pratap (supra), every person reacts in a different manner. In his own special way. We shall also deal with the reactions of PW14 Subodh Kumar subsequently.

36. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the appellants reiterated that the testimonies of PW1 Ashok Chowdhary and DW1 Raj Kumar ought to be considered as credible and that of PW14 Subodh Kumar ought to be discarded on the ground of unreliability and that of his unnatural conduct. He placed reliance on three other decisions of the Supreme Court:-

(i) Karuppanna Thevar v. State of Tamil Nadu: AIR 1976 SC 980;
(ii) Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab: AIR 1994 SC 110; and

40. The observations of the Supreme Court in Karuppanna Thevar (supra) do not help the appellants. In fact, the Supreme Court observed that unnatural events also take place in life and it is only when a series of unnatural incidents are alleged to have taken place in quick succession that the case acquires an air of unreality. The only unnatural event that is alleged in the present case is with regard to the so-called unnatural conduct of PW14 Subodh Kumar. There is no series of unnatural incidents which could give this case an air of unreality. Therefore, this decision of the Supreme Court does not advance the case of the appellants. On the contrary, it lends credence to the prosecution case even if we consider the conduct of PW14 Subodh Kumar to be unnatural. This is so because the Supreme Court recognized the fact that unnatural events also take place in life. As regards Surjit Singh (supra), the observations of the Supreme Court pertain to the facts of the case before it and the conduct of the witness being highly unnatural. According to the Supreme Court, witnesses could be expected to raise an alarm or at least to go to the deceased so that they rescue the victim which, in that case, the witness did not do. In the present case, the situation is different. PW14 Subodh Kumar, after seeing off the injured Surinder Gupta in the car driven by PW1 Ashok Chowdhary for hospital, immediately left, though on foot, to inform the family of the injured. This conduct is entirely different from the conduct in the fact situation in Surjit Singh (supra). Furthermore, in Surjit Singh (supra), the witness in question was earlier involved in criminal cases, where in one case he had been stabbed by the deceased. There was, therefore, an earlier criminal involvement with the victim of the crime. That is not the position in the facts of the present case. We will see that PW14 Subodh Kumar has allegedly been involved in criminal cases, but as per his testimony in cross-examination, in none of those cases the accused herein are also involved and, in any event, PW14 Subodh Kumar had been acquitted in all those cases. Therefore, the remark that he was of questionable character would not squarely cover the case of PW14 Subodh Kumar.