| CITATION | CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 1140 1141 OF 2010 |
| DATE OF JUDGEMENT | 7 May, 2021. |
| COURT | Supreme Court of India |
| APPELLANT | Achhar Singh |
| RESPONDENT | State of Himachal Pradesh |
| BENCH | Hon’ble The Justice, Surya Kant |
INTRODUCTION
This case analysis summarizes a case involving a complaint filed by Netar Singh, where the accused persons allegedly broke into his house armed with various weapons, including axes, spears, insects and jigs. The complainant and other witnesses stated that Budhi Singh and Narinder Singh hit Netar Singh’s mother on the head with an axe, killing her. The accused also attacked Netar Singh’s father, causing injuries[1].
Witnesses gave consistent accounts of events, and their testimony was supported by physical reports and medical examinations of the injured. The court did not evaluate the evidence properly and made a mistake.
The Supreme Court of Appeals overturned the decision pf the first instance court, convicting the defendant based on acceptable and consistent evidence obtained from the prosecution evidence.
This literature review highlights the difference between perjury and perjury in testimony and highlights the court’s duty to disregard the veracity of the evidence.[2] This also relates to the appellate court’s power to intervene with the appellate court if it finds that the appellate court was unfair or interfered with the trial court.
FACTS OF THE CASE
- The gist of the case is that on the evening of 23 February 1996, an incident took place with the complainant Netar Singh, his wife Meera Devi and his mother Swari Devi.
- While Meera Devi and Swari Devi attended the wedding ceremony in the neighbouring village, Netar Singh and his family did not attend due to social boycott. To the wedding ceremony at Budhi Singh’s house.
- Around 8 pm, Netar Singh and his family were eating Dhaam (Traditional meal) when Budhi Singh, Achhar Singh and other villagers shouted at them to leave. Seeing the danger, they slowly entered and closed the door, where the protestors started throwing stones at them.[3]
- The attackers entered the house by breaking it with weapons such as axes, needles, spears and sticks, causing her to die immediately. Achhar Singh neutralized Beli Ram, Netar Singh’s father by charging him with an axe.
- Netar Singh was also beaten along with other residents but managed to escape from the roof. Meera Devi begs for mercy and the attackers finally leave, threatening Netar Singh’s family to kill them if they try to leave the house.
- Some villagers intervened and appealed to the accused to stop the violence, forcing them to leave the place. Later around 2 am, Netar Singh went to the Gram Panchayat Pradhan’s house and informed him about the strike. He asked him to call the police, but as telephone lines were cut and there were no buses at night.[4] Netar Singh walked 24 km to Jogindernagar police station and lodged an FIR against 16 residents, including the petitioner at 9:30 am on the morning of February 24,1996.
- There were protests and large-scale lawsuits. The court rejected the possibility of falsehood and confirmed that the plaintiffs had misrepresented their claims.[5] The trial court also noted that there were inconsistencies in witnesses’ testimony regarding the number and nature of injuries.
- Delay in lodging the FIR, doubts about the location of the incident and lack of evidence of telephone availability in neighbouring villages were considered fatal factors in the case. The court found all the defendants guilty and declared them not guilty.
- The Supreme Court agreed to the contrary but found that similar evidence favoured the plaintiff. The court said that the FIR, statement, post-mortem report and the axe recovered from her body confirmed the claim that Budhi Singh had given the first axe to Swari Devi’s head. The court also ruled that the accusations against Achhar Singh were consistent and that medical evidence showed that some of the injuries could have been caused by the axe.[6]
- The Supreme Court said the reason for the delay in lodging an FIR was the lack of public buses at night and distance between the complainant’s house and the police station. It was decided that the complainant would not come to the police station until the morning.
- The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the incident took place in a violent environment because the evidence included broken glass, explosives around the room and food debris. He also said that it was impossible for Budhi Singh to marry.[7]
- After re-examining the evidence, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of accused Achhar Singh an Budhi Singh.
ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE COURT
- Whether the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) was justified in interfering with the acquittal by the trial Court?
- Whether the appellants were rightly convicted in this case by the high court?
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the Appellate Tribunal should be “deceived” and deemed sufficient if no further review is required by the High Court under Article 378 of the Penal Code. They referred to the case of Murugesan v State to supports this argument. The counsel stated that merely because the appellate court’s view seems more probable, the trial court’s judgment should not be set aside.
The High Court should only intervene if the trial court’s decision is wrong. This point is stated from the case of Aruvelu v State. The expert spoke of the tendency of plaintiffs to lie. This inconsistency is intended to question the credibility of the witness.
The prosecutor added that the 9 people mentioned in the FIR were released as spectators at the time of payment and should be named as witnesses by the prosecution. Their failure to testify was seen as a flaw in the hearing.
As stated in the FSL report, it was also noted that there was no real blood on the back of the axe. ASI Jaisi Ram witnesses bloodstains outside the building, which raises doubts about the real location. Narinder Singh was convicted but an axe was found in his possession and he was charged with causing head injury, but the case remains hot.
The timing of the FIR raised suspicions as Meera Devi said the police arrived before the FIR was lodged. Due to the inconsistency between the eyewitnesses and the doctor’s decision, the final time of death began to be questioned. These support the court’s inability to identify specific individuals responsible for each injury.[8]
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
Learned counsel for the respondent said that FIR (First Information Report) is not treated as material evidence. It is used only to refute or support its author and not other witnesses.[9]
The counsel also stated that credibility of witnesses should not be questioned solely based on their relationship to the deceased. The case of State of UP v. Kishan Chand was referenced to emphasize this point.
In the case of Leela Ram v State of Haryana ,it was held that minor discrepancies or exaggerations in witness testimonies should not automatically undermine their credibility.
The learned counsel further highlighted that inconsistent evidence presented by prosecution witnesses against one accused cannot be used to benefit another accused.[10]
The lawyer argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Gangadhar Behera v. State of Odisha and Prabhu Dayal v. The State of Rajasthan supports this claim.
JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE
The court emphasized the difference between a statement and a false statement. Although eyewitnesses say a lot about the injuries, it is an important fact that Budhi Singh caused the fatal blows to Swari Devi.[11]
It was concluded that the first instance court made a mistake in rejecting credible and consistent evidence regarding the prosecution. The court did not take into account the relevant evidence and reached the wrong conclusion.
In these cases, it would be appropriate for the Supreme Court to overturn the decision of the first instance court. However, the court found sufficient evidence and reliable testimony to establish the defendant’s involvement in the crime.
Prosecutors argued that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was inconsistent and implausible, but the defense testimony was rejected by the court, which held that it was replete with evidence and confirmed the same that Budi Singh was responsible for the murder.
The Supreme Court examined the complainant’s statement, evidence and medical records. It was held that Budi Singh had seriously injured Swari Devi and the court’s decision could not be sustained as it was not based on reliable and positive evidence.
Therefore, the Supreme Court overturned the initial decision, finding that the trial court’s decision was unfair and inconsistent with the evidence presented. The high court upheld the conviction of Achhar Singh under Sections 452, 326 and 323 of the IPC and the conviction of Budhi Singh under Sections 302 and 452 of the IPC. Their bail was cancelled and they were ordered to serve the remainder of their sentences.
ANALYSIS
The court carefully analysed the circumstantial evidence, including the behavior and actions of the accused post the alleged crime. It emphasized the need for the prosecution to establish a complete chain of evidence that unerringly pointed to the guilt of the accused. The Supreme Court reiterated that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and point conclusively to the guilt of the accused. If there is any reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused, the benefit of the doubt must go to the accused. The court scrutinized the reliability and consistency of witness testimonies.[12]
The court’s decision in Achhar Singh v State of Rajasthan highlighted the importance of a thorough and conclusive chain of circumstantial evidence in criminal convictions. It underscored that the prosecution must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, ensuring that no other plausible explanation exists except the guilt of the accused. This case serves as an important precedent in the evaluation of circumstantial evidence in criminal law.
CONCLUSION
At the hearing where the two agreements were made, the Supreme Court used its own limitations. In such cases, the court prefers to rule on interpretation in favor of the defendant when interviewing the witness and interacting with the testimony. Unless there is evidence that the decision was wrong, the courts will refrain from intervening. However, this principle does not limit the scope of challenge to the award under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) merely for the purpose of determining an award that, in the opinion of the arbitral tribunal, is unreasonable. [13]After reviewing the trial court and Supreme Court records, the court concluded that the Supreme Court was justified in intervening to correct the trial court’s mistrial and obstruction of justice. The Supreme Court separated the relevant evidence from the irrelevant, which led to the appellant being found guilty. And, in the case of exaggeration, the high court effectively separated valid evidence from irrelevant aspects, leading to the conviction of the appellants. But when truth and lies become intertwined without any real evidence, their separation can leave all evidence behind. Therefore, it is not possible to consider the witness’s statement as pure hearsay.
REFERENCES
- https://indiankanoon.org.in
- https://lawfoyer.in/achhar-singh-vs-the-state-of-himachal-pradesh/
- https://main.sci.gov.in
- https://supremetoday.ai
- https://primelegal.in
- https://www.the-laws.com
This Article is written by Rupali Sharma, student of The Law School, University of Jammu; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
[2] https://indiankanoon.org.in
