Supreme Court Explains Principles Of Examination Of Witnesses: Rajesh Yadav Vs State Of UP

DATE OF JUDGMENT:
4th February 2022

JUDGES:
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Justice M. M. Sundersh, JJ.

PARTIES:
Appellant/Petitioner: Rajesh Yadav
Respondent: State of U.P

SUBJECT

In the present case, an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court of India against the order of the High Court that convicted the appellants for life under Section 25 of the Arms Act 19659 while acquitting the appellants under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

OVERVIEW

1. The facts of the matter are such that the appellants gunned down two people to death on 17.09.004 due to some prolonged election dispute. An FIR by the nephew (PWs-1) of one of the deceased was lodged on the same day. PWs-13 did a substantial part of the investigation and on his transfer final report was filed by PWs-8. On the charge under the Arms Act, a subsequent report was filed by PWs-14.
2. PWs-3, an independent witness who disposed of in favour of the prosecution later turned hostile. PWs-13, while deposed in chief examination, refused to depose any further as he was transferred. One Om Prakash was not examined by the Prosecution for the reason that the couldn't be secured. Taking note of the above, the High Court rightly acquitted the appellants for the offense punishable under Section 307 IPC.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants argued that the prosecution failed to examine the independent eye witness Om Prakash for inexplicable reasons. The Counsel further argued that PWs-1 and PWs-2 (brother of the second deceased) were chance witnesses and held bias. The deposition of PWs-13 can’t be accepted as he wasn’t put through cross-examination.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the state argued that merely because PWs-1 &2 are the relatives of the deceased, their testimonies cannot be disbelieved. Om Prakash couldn’t be produced before the Court because of his medical condition. The order of the High Court thus requires no interference.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Code of Criminal procedure, 1973

Section 173- Report of police officer on completion of investigation.

ISSUES

1. Whether non-completion of examination of the witness unfavourably affects his previous deposition?
2. Whether deposition of a witness related to the victim affects the neutrality of the trial?
3. Whether non-examination of an independent witness affects the vitality of the trial?

JUDGMENT

1. Examining the evidentiary value of the final report it was held that, under section 173(2) of CrPC, the final report forms a mere opinion of the investigating officer on the evidence pieced together by him. The truth of such a report can only be decided by the court. The mere fact that the investigating officer has not deposed before the court or has not cooperated sufficiently, an accused cannot be entitled to acquittal on the argument, therefore, the court concluded that deposition of PWs-13 didn’t become admissible just because his further examination was never carried out. Reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of Lahu Kamlakar Patil v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 6 SCC 417.
2. Explaining the jurisprudence of chance witness, the Court stated that merely because a witness happens to see an occurrence by chance, his testimony cannot be eschewed though a little more scrutiny may be required at times. The Court relied on the judgment in the case of State of A.P. v. K. Srinivasulu Reddy (2003) 12 SCC 660 where it was held that the evidence of such witnesses cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere “chance witnesses”.
3. On the issue that PW-1 AND PW-2 are related to the deceased the Court elaborated that a related witness can also be a natural witness and if their evidence is clear, cogent, and withstood the rigor of cross-examination, it requires further corroboration. If the Court is convinced with the quality of the evidence, irrespective of the classification of witnesses, it becomes reliable evidence. Reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of Bhaskarrao v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 6 SCC 591.
4. On the issue of non-examination of an independent witness, Om Prakash the Court held that a mere non-examination of the witness per se will not vitiate the case of the prosecution. The quality of the witness takes precedence over quantity in a criminal trial. Reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 369.
5. The Court, therefore, concluded that the order of the High Court requires no interference.

CONCLUSION

Examination of witnesses forms one of the most important factors in a trial that could single-handedly be used to determine the guilt of the accused. Therefore, it becomes important for the courts to explain the jurisprudence related to the examination of witnesses. The judgment in the present case would serve as a benchmark for the cases pending across India.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement