RAJESH YADAV & Anr. v. STATE OF U.P

1.6 There are three eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution. PWs-1 & 2 have not contradicted between themselves being the eye-witnesses. Merely because they are related witnesses, in the absence of any material to hold that they are interested, their testimonies cannot be rejected. There is also no delay in the registration of the FIR. PW-3 though turned hostile, spoke about the incident in his chief examination. Strangely, in the cross examination he turned turtle, while disputing the very factum of his chief examination made before the court. Nothing is said on the credibility of the said witness in view of the evidence of PWs -1 & 2. The view of the courts on this witness also deserves to be accepted. [Para 33][1000-A-C]

1.7 The High Court has rightly set aside the conviction rendered by the trial court for the charge under Section 307 IPC. PWs-1 & 2 have not spoken about the presence of the injured witness. The circumstances under which he could not be produced was explained by the prosecution. Merely because he was not produced, the entire case of the prosecution would not become false. [Para 34][1000-C-D]

1.8 The FSL report was placed on record. Both the courts have considered and relied upon the said report. The entire circumstances under which the material was collected including the cartridges, along with the recoveries made which were sent to the expert, have been explained by the official witnesses. There is nothing unnatural in the testimony. On a perusal of the evidence available no delay is found in either sending the recovered arms to the expert or receiving the FSL report. The circumstances A B C D E F G H 972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R. under which they were sent and received were spoken about and explained. The appellants have neither shown any prejudice being caused by the alleged delay, nor have disputed the findings of the said report. [Paras 36, 35][1000-E-G]

1.9 The appellants submitted that the investigating officer could not be cross examined further with respect to the injuries and the recoveries. That per se would not make the entire case of the prosecution bad is law particularly when the final report itself cannot be termed as a substantive piece of evidence being nothing but a collective opinion of the investigating officer. The trial court as well as the High court considered the evidence threadbare in coming to the right conclusion. Similarly, the contention that there is non-explanation for the existence of some other empty cartridge recovered from the place of occurrence would not facilitate an acquittal for the appellants as there are materials sufficient enough to implicate and prove the offence against them. [Para 37][1000-G; 1001-B-C]

1.10 This Court takes judicial note of the factual scenario that the trial courts are adjourning the cross examination of the private witnesses after the conclusion of the cross examination without any rhyme or reason, at the drop of a hat. Long adjournments are being given after the completion of the chief examination, which only helps the defense to win them over at times, with the passage of time. Thus, this Court deems it appropriate to reiterate that the trial courts shall endeavor to complete the examination of the private witnesses both chief and cross on the same day as far as possible. To further curtail this menace, it is expected the trial courts to take up the examination of the private witnesses first, before proceeding with that of the official witnesses. [Para 39][1001-E-G]