STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. CHHAAKKI LAL & Anr.

1.3 FIR is not an encyclopaedia which is expected to contain all the minute details of the prosecution case, it may be sufficient if the broad effects of the prosecution case are stated in the FIR. In this case, firing by accused no.1 at child ‘R’ was stated in the FIR and the omission of minute detail that accused no.1 jumped on the abdomen of child ‘R’ cannot be regarded as fatal to the prosecution case. The effect of the occurrence on the mind of an old woman like PW-1 cannot be measured in yardstick. Being grief-stricken because of the death of her four kith and kin, it may not have occurred to her to narrate all the minute details of the occurrence. The non-mention of accused no.1 throwing the child ‘R’ on the ground and jumping on his abdomen due to which the intestine came out cannot be regarded as fatal to the prosecution case. Further, when there is proper explanation for the delay, the prosecution case cannot be doubted on the ground that there was delay in registration of FIR. In this case, the delay in FIR was properly explained and the same is not fatal to the prosecution case. [Para 19, 25] [195-C-E; 198-B-C]

1.4 PW-1 was a rustic villager and also aged. After seeing her own daughter and daughter in law and grandson being put to death, she must have been under tremendous shock. She was deposing in the court after some time. Naturally, there are bound to be variations from her earlier version. The trial court which had the opportunity to observe the demeanour of the witnesses found that the evidence of PWs is credible and trustworthy. While so, the High Court ought not to have recorded a finding raising doubts about the credibility of PW-1. Unless the appreciation of evidence by the trial court was vitiated by serious error, the findings recorded by the trial court ought not to have been interfered by the High Court. The High Court erred in doubting the testimony of PW-1. It would be unreasonable to contend that merely because PW-1 is related to the deceased and that there were contradictions in her evidence, her evidence has to be discarded. Discrepancies which do not shake the credibility of the witness and the basic version of the prosecution case are to be discarded. If the evidence of the witness as a whole contains the ring of truth, the evidence cannot be doubted. [Paras 20-22] [195-F-G; 196-A-C] A B C D E F G H STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. CHHAAKKI LAL 187 Prithu alias Prithi Chand and Another v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2009) 11 SCC 588 : [2009] 2 SCR 765 - relied on. State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony (1985) 1 SCC 505 – referred to.

1.5 So far as the place of occurrence is concerned, the evidence of PW-1 is amply corroborated by other evidence. It is not the number; but the quality of the evidence that matters. In terms of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, “no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact”. [Para 23] 196-G; 197-A] Prithipal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 1 SCC 10 – relied on. Sudip Kumar Sen alias Biltu v. State of West Bengal and Others (2016) 3 SCC 26 – referred to.

1.6 The opinion of the Ballistic expert that the fired kartoos was fired by 0.315 bore katta/desi pistol (Ex.-A4) recovered from accused no.1 and the opinion that live kartoos (Ex.-EB1 and EB2) were fired from 12 bore gun (Ex.-A3) recovered from accused no.2 amply proves the involvement of the complicity of the accused in the occurrence thereby corroborating the evidence of PW-1. [Para 27] [199-G-H]

#2. In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal. But where the approach of the High Court suffers from serious infirmity, this court can reappreciate the evidence and reasonings upon which the order of acquittal is based. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of the innocent. The High Court erred in doubting the version of PW-1, the sole eye witness whose evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence and the evidence of ballistic expert. The High Court did not appreciate the evidence of PW-1 in proper perspective and erred in disbelieving her version on the contradictions which are not material. Where the evidence has not been properly analysed or the High court has acted on surmises and findings of the impugned A B C D E F G H 188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R. A B C D judgment is unreasonable, it is the duty of the appellate court to set right the wrong. The order of acquittal by the High court cannot be sustained and the judgment of the trial court is to be restored. [Paras 35, 36] [202-B-D; E, F]

#3. After convicting the accused persons under Section 302 IPC, the trial court held that the case would be one of the ‘rarest of rare cases’ and awarded death penalty. The occurrence was of the year 2006 and moreover, the appeal against accused no.2 has been abated due to his passing away. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the passage of time, awarding of death penalty is not warranted and imposing sentence of life imprisonment upon the respondent/accused no.1 would meet the ends of justice. The accused no.1 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. [Paras 37, 38] [202-F-G; 203-B]