Case: State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. P.A. Madhu

the evidence of PW 5 that the brief case of the respondent was being handled by DW 1.We might state here that the High Court has applied two different standards to assess the evidence of the prosecution and that of the defence. While the High Court accepts the uncorro borated evidence of DW 1, who is as much interested in the dispute as the deceased, if not more, being Vice-President of the Union and also in possession of the brief case of the respondent, yet it disbelieves the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 mainly on the ground that they were highly interested. The relevant finding of the High Court on this point may be extracted thus: In the first place, it shows that Subrat Kumar Gui and M.R. Bhaumik were mainly responsible for the prosecution of the case, although the deceased had been in general supervision of all labour disputes of the company at all the places. In the second place, it also points out that these two witnesses were not happy with the appellant who had been representing the cause of the labourers before the Industrial Tribunal and that they were sore about his conduct. In these circumstances these two witnesses could not be said to be independent 9. Here, t he High Court completely lost sight of two important facts-(1) that PWs 5 and 7 were high officers of the Company and were not likely to depose falsely on a matter like this, and (2) that PW-6, who was the standing counsel of the Company and other labour cases for more than 3 decades, fully corroborates the evidence of PWs 5 and 7. We have examined the evidence of PWs S and 7 with very great care and caution but we are unable to find any discrepancy or defect in their evidence so as to lead any court to reject the same. On the other hand, on a consideration of their evidence. we are satisfied that are throughout consistent and congruous and that their evidence bears a ring of truth; We are indeed surprised how th e High Court could disbelieve the evidence of the eye-witnesses in the case of a cold-blooded murder committed in broad day light where the respondent was caught red-handed at the spot. The High Court also over looked the crying conduct of the respondent who went on firing one shot after the other so as to make sure that Sirgaonkar does not survive at any cost.Another ground on which the High Court has reversed the judgment of the Sessions Judge is that it is difficult to believe that after the respondent threw the pistol he continued to remain at the spot and did not make any attempt to escape. With due respect, this finding of the High Court is also most unrealistic. There is clear evidence of PWs. 5, 6 and 7 that after the respondent threw down the pistol he was surrounded by the three witnesses so that he could not escape. The High Court has failed to consider this important aspect of the matter. Moreover, if a person commits a cold-blooded murder in the premises of a court which is bound to be full of other litigants also, he cannot think of escaping and is bound to be caught by someone or the other. 10. The High Court was further of the view that it is extremely doubtful that the witnesses could see the incident from inside the court room as there was no door or window through which the incident could be seen. To buttress this observation, the High Court seems to have relied on the evidence of DW 1 that the four persons, including DW 1, entered the court room as soon as the first shot was fired. This statement is obviously wrong because all the three witnesses stated that the shots were fired while they were outside the court room and they actually saw the respondent firing the shots. I t was only after a few shots were fired that they entered the court room and even so they were able to see the whole occurrence from the glass panes of the court room. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that there were no glass panes in the window and that the place of occurrence could not be visible from the court room. In these circumstances the conclusion of the High Court is purely speculative and against the weight of evidence on the record.The High Court seems to have placed some reliance on the evidence of D.W.1 but as he was highly interested, his evidence unless corroborated by independent evidence should not have been acted upon in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. 11. Lastly, the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the fact that there was no reason for three eye- witnesses, one of whom was a standing counsel far about 30 years, to have falsely implicated the respondent merely because he was Secretary of the Union. The consistent course of conduct of the respondent speaks volumes against his innocence. He was caught red-handed at the spot and was surrounded by the witnesses so that he could not escape, and the police arrived within fifteen minutes of the occurrence and took him to the police station. Some comment was made by the High Court about the delay in the inquest report but that does not appear to be of any consequence if the evidence of the three eye-w itnesses is to be believed. 12. We have given our anxious consideration to the evidence of the three witnesses (PWs 5, 6 and 7) and we find ourselves in complete agreement with the Sessions Judge that these witnesses were both reliable and trustworthy. In fact, the High Court committed a grave error of law in not going into the intrinsic merits of the evidence of each of the eye-witnesses and in discarding the same on general ground which also have no substance.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]The High Court was further of the view that it is extremely doubtful that the witnesses could see the incident from inside the court room as there was no door or window through which the incident could be seen. To buttress this observation, the High Court seems to have relied on the evidence of DW 1 that the four persons, including DW 1, entered the court room as soon as the first shot was fired. This statement is obviously wrong because all the three witnesses stated that the shots were fired while they were outside the court room and they actually saw the respondent firing the shots. I t was only after a few shots were fired that they entered the court room and even so they were able to see the whole occurrence from the glass panes of the court room. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that there were no glass panes in the window and that the place of occurrence could not be visible from the court room. In these circumstances the conclusion of the High Court is purely speculative and against the weight of evidence on the record.The High Court seems to have placed some reliance on the evidence of D.W.1 but as he was highly interested, his evidence unless corroborated by independent evidence should not have been acted upon in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this caseLastly, the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the fact that there was no reason for three eye- witnesses, one of whom was a standing counsel far about 30 years, to have falsely implicated the respondent merely because he was Secretary of the Union. The consistent course of conduct of the respondent speaks volumes against his innocence. He was caught red-handed at the spot and was surrounded by the witnesses so that he could not escape, and the police arrived within fifteen minutes of the occurrence and took him to the police station. Some comment was made by the High Court about the delay in the inquest report but that does not appear to be of any consequence if the evidence of the three eye-w itnesses is to be believedWe have given our anxious consideration to the evidence of the three witnesses (PWs 5, 6 and 7) and we find ourselves in complete agreement with the Sessions Judge that these witnesses were both reliable and trustworthy. In fact, the High Court committed a grave error of law in not going into the intrinsic merits of the evidence of each of the eye-witnesses and in discarding the same on general ground which also have no substance9. Here, t he High Court completely lost sight of two important) that PWs 5 and 7 were high officers of the Company and were not likely to depose falsely on a matter like this, and (2) that, who was the standing counsel of the Company and other labour cases for more than 3 decades, fully corroborates the evidence of PWs 5 and 7. We have examined the evidence of PWs S and 7 with very great care and caution but we are unable to find any discrepancy or defect in their evidence so as to lead any court to reject the same. On the other hand, on a consideration of their evidence. we are satisfied that are throughout consistent and congruous and that their evidence bears a ring of truth; We are indeed surprised how th e High Court could disbelieve the evidence of thes in the case of ad murder committed in broad day light where the respondent was caughtd at the spot. The High Court also over looked the crying conduct of the respondent who went on firing one shot after the other so as to make sure that Sirgaonkar does not survive at any cost.Another ground on which the High Court has reversed the judgment of the Sessions Judge is that it is difficult to believe that after the respondent threw the pistol he continued to remain at the spot and did not make any attempt to escape. With due respect, this finding of the High Court is also most unrealistic. There is clear evidence of PWs. 5, 6 and 7 that after the respondent threw down the pistol he was surrounded by the three witnesses so that he could not escape. The High Court has failed to consider this important aspect of the matter. Moreover, if a person commits ad murder in the premises of a court which is bound to be full of other litigants also, he cannot think of escaping and is bound to be caught by someone or the otherThe High Court was further of the view that it is extremely doubtful that the witnesses could see the incident from inside the court room as there was no door or window through which the incident could be seen. To buttress this observation, the High Court seems to have relied on the evidence of DW 1 that the four persons, including DW 1, entered the court room as soon as the first shot was fired. This statement is obviously wrong because all the three witnesses stated that the shots were fired while they were outside the court room and they actually saw the respondent firing the shots. I t was only after a few shots were fired that they entered the court room and even so they were able to see the whole occurrence from the glass panes of the court room. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that there were no glass panes in the window and that the place of occurrence could not be visible from the court room. In these circumstances the conclusion of the High Court is purely speculative and against the weight of evidence on the record.The High Court seems to have placed some reliance on the evidence of D.W.1 but as he was highly interested, his evidence unless corroborated by independent evidence should not have been acted upon in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this