Brief Facts
- On 05.09.1985, the father of the Complainant was tragically murdered at around 10:00 AM. Following this, on the same day at approx 12:10 PM, complainant (PW-2) filed a complaint, resulting in lodging of a FIR under Section 302 of the IPC. The individuals accused of this crime were Munna Lal, Sheo Lal, Babu Ram, and Kalika. The investigation, led by Investigating Officer Ram Pal Sagar and his team, discovered a bullet at the crime scene. After the investigation, a charge-sheet for murder was filed against all four suspects.
- The case was brought before Trial Court which found the existence of motive, medical evidence and all other circumstances proved the case against the Accused. Testimonies from PW No.2 and PW No.3 (eye-witness) were particularly influential, leading to a verdict where Munna Lal, Sheo Lal, and Babu Ram were sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Conviction was upheld by the High Court resulting in filing of the present Appeal.
Issues
- Whether the trial court, on the basis of the materials before it, was justified in recording conviction and consequently, sentencing the appellants to spend the rest of their lives in prison?
- Whether the non-examination of the Investigation Officer would be fatal to the case of the prosecution?
- Whether the defects in the investigation process itself can be a ground for acquittal?
- Whether the delay in recording the statement of material witnesses under section 161 CrPC, non-recovery of weapon can be fatal to the prosecution?
Held
- The Apex Court ordered for acquittal of the accused as lapses committed in the investigation were found to be fatal. The Apex Court considered the following factors for acquitted the accused:
a) The presence of the eye-witness PW-3 at the place of occurrence could not be proven. There were material inconsistencies in the statement of PW-3 and PW-2 (complainant). Statement of PW-3 under section 161 CrPC were recorded after the delay of 24 days from the incident.
b) Both PW-2 and PW-3 admitted the presence of certain independent eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence, however, none of these independent eye-witnesses were examined leading the court to draw the inference that had they been examined, the prosecution story would not have been supported by them.
c) No efforts worthy of consideration appears to have been made to seize the weapons by which the murderous attack was launched.
d) Non-examination of the Investigation Officer was found to be fatal as the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 were not wholly reliable and examination of IO was vital since he could have adduced the expected evidence.
e) Previous enmity between the deceased and the accused could be a reason to falsely implicate them.
Principles of law summarized by the Court
a) Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, enshrines the well-recognized maxim that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. In other words, it is the quality of evidence that matters and not the quantity. As a sequitur, even in a case of murder, it is not necessary to insist upon a plurality of witnesses and the oral evidence of a single witness, if found to be reliable and trustworthy, could lead to a conviction.
b) Generally speaking, oral testimony may be classified into three categories, viz.:
(i) Wholly reliable;
(ii) Wholly unreliable;
(iii) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
The first two category of cases may not pose serious difficulty for the court in arriving at its conclusion(s). However, in the third category of cases, the court has to be circumspect and look for corroboration of any material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, as a requirement of the rule of prudence.
c) A defective investigation is not always fatal to the prosecution where ocular testimony is found credible and cogent. While in such a case the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence, a faulty investigation cannot in all cases be a determinative factor to throw out a credible prosecution version.
d) Non-examination of the Investigating Officer must result in prejudice to the accused; if no prejudice is caused, mere non-examination would not render the prosecution case fatal.
e) Discrepancies do creep in, when a witness deposes in a natural manner after lapse of some time, and if such discrepancies are comparatively of a minor nature and do not go to the root of the prosecution story, then the same may not be given undue importance.
Relevant Para No.
- 28, 33, 37, 39, 40, 43