APEX COURT HELD THAT
EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 – Ss. 145, 157 & 159 – Appreciation of evidence – Hostile witness – Evidentiary value – Interested witness – Scope of reliance – CRIMINAL TRIAL – Benefit of doubt – Contradictions in medical evidence – Failure to prove genesis and occurrence of offence – Acquittal.
Appellant convicted under Ss.302 and 323 IPC and Ss.3(2)(v) & 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on allegation that he assaulted deceased with stone owing to earlier incident of deceased eloping with appellant’s sister – Prosecution case rested mainly on testimony of mother of deceased (PW1) and accompanying witness (PW3) – PW3 turned hostile and denied material part of prosecution story including informing PW1 about incident – Other witnesses also turned hostile regarding alleged Panchayat said to be genesis of dispute – Medical evidence contained serious discrepancies regarding date and time of postmortem and cause of death – Independent witnesses from busy public road not examined – Conviction confirmed by High Court – Sustainability.
Held : Conviction unsustainable. Though evidence of hostile witness is not effaced from record and can be relied upon to extent found dependable, same principle equally permits use of hostile testimony to discredit prosecution case and support acquittal where such testimony inspires credibility when read with remaining evidence. In present case, testimony of hostile witness PW3 demolished foundational prosecution story relating to occurrence of incident and informing PW1. Evidence of PW4 and PW5 further destroyed prosecution version regarding Panchayat and motive for offence.
Evidence of interested witness, though not liable to mechanical rejection, requires careful scrutiny. Where testimony of such witness suffers from contradictions and remains unsupported by reliable corroboration, Court must exercise heightened caution. Sole testimony of PW1, mother of deceased, could not be safely relied upon in view of material inconsistencies and hostile evidence of other witnesses.
Medical evidence also rendered unreliable owing to irreconcilable discrepancies in postmortem report regarding date and timing of autopsy and unexplained contradictions in medical records. Postmortem report by itself is not substantive evidence and requires credible corroboration through testimony of medical expert. In absence of satisfactory explanation by doctor, evidentiary value of medical evidence stood seriously diminished.
Where alleged incident occurred on busy public road with constant vehicular movement and yet prosecution failed to examine any independent witness, prosecution story became doubtful. Genesis and motive of crime not proved. Prosecution failed to establish occurrence beyond reasonable doubt. Concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court held perverse and liable to be set aside.
Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202; Bhaskarrao v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC 591; Khujji v. State of M.P., (1991) 3 SCC 627; Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai v. State of Gujarat, (1999) 8 SCC 624; Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, (1976) 1 SCC 389; Himanshu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 2 SCC 36; Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, (2022) 12 SCC 657, relied on.
(Paras 5 to 10.4)
HELD
Postmortem report is not substantive evidence by itself and can only corroborate testimony of medical expert. Where medical witness fails to explain material discrepancies in postmortem report, evidentiary value of medical evidence stands seriously impaired. (Paras 6 and 6.1)
Evidence of hostile witness is admissible and may be relied upon not only for sustaining conviction but also for discrediting prosecution case and supporting acquittal where testimony appears credible and is corroborated by surrounding circumstances. (Paras 8.3 to 9)
Evidence of related or interested witness requires cautious scrutiny, particularly where testimony suffers from contradictions and lacks corroboration from independent evidence. (Paras 7.4 to 8.2)
Failure of prosecution to examine independent witnesses despite alleged occurrence taking place on busy public road and contradictions in prosecution evidence rendered very occurrence of incident doubtful. (Paras 7.1 to 7.3 and 10)
Concurrent findings of conviction based on weak, contradictory and unreliable evidence liable to be interfered with by Supreme Court. (Paras 10 to 10.4)
RESULT
Appeal allowed. Judgments of Trial Court and High Court set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges under IPC and SC/ST Act and directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
