MAHAVIR SINGH versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 394, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016) 8 S.C.R. 394 
MAHAVIR SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1141 of2007) 
NOVEMBER 09, 2016 
[A.K. SIKRI AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Appellant-accused alongwith 
other co-accused charged u/ss. 302, 147, 1./8 and 149 !PC - Trial 
court acquitted all the accused in view of contradictory statements 
of PWs, conflict befll'een ocular and medical evidence, delay in 
recording statements of witnesses, non-availability of proper site 
plan and absence of authenticated ballistic expert report - High 
Court partly allowing the appeal of the State convicted the appe/lant-
accused uls. 302 - On appeal, held: In the facts of the case there 
was no .compelling and substantial reason for the High court to 
interfere with the order of acqui1tal, as the prosecution miserably 
failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond doubt - Mere 
sei::ure of gun and cartridges, enmity between the parties, and 
altercation and exchange of heated words between the rival groups 
cannot establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Appellant-
accused is acquitted. 
Criminal trial - Contradict01y statements - Held: It is natural 
for human beings to state variant statements due to time gap - But 
if the stalements go to defeat !he case of the prosecution, such 
contradictions are material and the court has to be mindful of such 
statements. 
Evidence - Ocular evidence vis-a-vis medical evidence -
Ocular testimony has greater
evidentimy value vis-a-vis medical 
evidence - But when medical evidence makes the oral testimony 
improbable, ocular evidenc_e may be disbelieved. 
Witnesses: 
Interested witness - Evidentiary value - The evidence of 
interested witness needs to be scrutinized with utmost care - It can 
only be relied upon, if the evidence has ring of truth to it, is cogent, 
394
MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
395 
credible and trustworthy - A contradicted testimony of an interested A 
witness cannot be usually treated as conclusive. 
Chance Witness - Evidentimy value - Though evidence of 
chance witness is qcceptable. yet such witness has to reasonably 
explain his presence at 1he place of occurrenc:e. 
Appeal -Appeal against acquiual - Held: There are no fetters 
011 the powers of' appellate court to revieH'. re-appreciale and 
reconsider the evidence. on facts as ivell as /all' - But the court is 
required lo be cautious in interfering with m1 appeal unless there 
are compelling and substanlial grounds to inte1fere ll'ith the order 
of acquittal. 
Investigation - Investigating office1~ dealing ll'ith a murder 
case. is expected to be diligent. truthfitl and fair in his approach -
His pe1for111a11ce should always be in conformity with the police 
manual -A default and breach of duty may prove fatal to prosecution 
case. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In the criminal .inrisprudence, an accused is 
presumed to be innocent till he is convicted by a competent court 
after a full-fledged trial, and once the trial court by cogent 
reasoning acquits the accused, then the reaffirmation of his 
innocence places more burden on the appellate court while dealing 
with the appeal. No doubt, it is settled law that there are no 
fetters on the power of the appellate court to review, reappreciate 
and reconsider the evidence both on facts
and law upon which 
the order of acquittal is passed. But the court has to be very 
cautious in interfering with an appeal unless there are compelling 
and substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. 
The appellate court while passing an order has to give clear 
reasoning for such a conclusion. It is no doubt true that there 
cannot be any strait jacket formula as to under what circumstances 
appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal, but the 
same depends on facts and circumstances of each case. [Paras 
12,_ p 1 [ 403-E.-Hl 
1.2 In the present case, from the same set of facts, the trial 
court as well as the High Court have arrived at different 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
396 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
conclusions, such an exercise cannot be undertaken by the High 
Court in an appeal unless the conclusion drawn by the trial court 
cannot be sustained based on the facts and circumstances and 
when two conclusions are possible based on the evidence available 
on record, the appellate court should be all the more reluctant to 
B 
c 
D 
E 
interfere with the findings recorded by the trial court. [Para 
15)[404-F-G] 
2. Both the courts below formed a common opinion that 
the prosecution has failed to prove the charges under Sections 
148 and 302/149 of IPC against the co-accused and discharged 
them from those charges. The disagreement between the trial 
court and the High Court is only in respect of the charge under 
Section 302, IPC against the appellant. The difference of opinion 
between the courts below in deciding whether or not the appellant 
has committed the offence with which he is charged, mainly 
revolves around the presence of alleged direct eyewitnesses at 
the spot, possibility of appellant's inflicting firearm injury to the 
deceased in view of the positioning of the injury sustained by the 
deceased, the material infirmity, if any, and contradiction in the 
ocular and medical evidencc.[Paras 16, 23)[404-H; 405-A-B; 407-
G-H; 408-A] 
3. Though, at the outset, the accused/appellant absolutely 
rejected the allegation and pleaded not guilty by taking the 
defence of alibi that on the date of incident, he was
irrigating his 
field, but his claim has not been supported by any evidence. [Para 
16)(405-B) 
F 
4. The parties arc admittedly in hostile terms and the 
incident in question occurred in a broad day light at the residence 
of the deceased. The prosecution, in support of its version, has 
heavily relied upon the statements of eyewitnesses PW 7, PW 8, 
PW 9 and PW 11. The trial Judge disbelieved the presence of 
eyewitnesses on the spot in view of delayed recording of their 
G statements by the Investigating Officer and also they remained 
unsuccessful in revealing exactly as to where the bullet had struck 
the deceased. Nowhere in the First Information Report, the name 
or presence of eyewitness PW 8 was mentioned as a witness to 
the incident. [Para 17)1405-D-FJ 
H
MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
397 
5. The High Court has attached a lot of weight to the A 
evidence of PW 9, who has admitted that he has been a witness 
in another case against the accused for the deceased. Thus PW 9 
has been acting as a pocket witness for the family. Further, the 
credibility of this independent witness can be challenged on the 
fact that the commotion was only heard by PW9, whereas the 
rest of the members of the locality did not come for help. This 
admission by PW 9 not only forces the Court to doubt the veracity 
of his own deposition but also has created doubts on the version 
of PW 7. As PW 9 is a chance witness as well as an interested 
witness, causes suspicion and does not inspire confidence. The 
evidence of interested witness needs to be scrutinized with 
utmost care. It can only be relied upon if the evidence has a ring 
of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy. A contradicted 
testimony of an interested witness cannot be usually treated as 
conclusive. It is to be seen that although the evidence of a chance 
witness is acceptable in India, yet the chance witness has to 
reasonably explain the presence at that particular point more so 
when his deposition is being assailed as being tainted. [Paras 18, 
191(405-F-H; 406-A-C] 
6. The evidence of PW 12 reveals that when the deceased 
sustained bullet injury, he might have been in a standing position 
and the bullet would have entered from left side and exited from 
right
side of the body. This fact, however, is corroborated with 
the evidences of PW 7 and PW 8, but the statements of PW 9 and 
PW 11 do not support it. Similarly, there were contradictions 
between the statements of PW 12 and that of the eyewitnesses 
as to the distance and height of the assaulter while inflicting the 
grievous injury to the deceased and whether the deceased was 
standing on the platform (Clwbutara) or came down from it, while 
receiving the bullet injury. PW 12 was not clear and definite to 
say exactly from what position and distance the assaulter could 
have fired the gun. [Para 20](406-D-F] 
7. One gun, 12 live and 9 empty cartridges were recovered 
from the appellant. The prosecution's story is somewhat 
strengthened by the ballistic expert's report. But nowhere it was 
mentioned that the death of the victim occurred by the bullet 
released from the seized gun. Merely the seizure of gun and 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
398 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
cartridges from the appellant, the ongoing enmity between the 
parties on account of various criminal litigations and the altercation 
and exchange of heated words between the rival groups on the 
morning of the same day, cannot establish the guilt of accused 
beyond reasonable doubt. !Para 21][406-G-H; 407-A-B) 
8. Though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater 
evidentiary value vis-a-vis medical evidence, when medical 
evidence makes the ocular testimony inq>robable, that becomes 
a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence. 
However, where the medical evidence goes far that it completely 
rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the 
ocular evidence may be disbelieved. [Para 22)(407-C-D) 
Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. 2010 (13) SCR 311 : 
(2010) 10 sec 259 - relied on. 
9. It is the duty of the Apex Court to separate chaff from 
the husk and to dredge the truth from the pandemonium of 
Statements. It is but natural for human beings to state variant 
statements due to time gap but if such statements go to defeat 
the core of the prosecution then such contradictions are material 
and the Court has to be mindful of such statements. In the present 
matter, there are material exaggerations and contradictions, which 
inevitably raises doubt which is reasonable in normal 
circumstances. [Para 2411408-B-C] 
Tahsildhar Singh v. State of Ul~ AIR 1959 SC 1012 i 
1959
Suppl. SCR 875; Pudhu Raja v. State 2012 (8) 
SCR 740; (2012) 11 SCC 196: State of U.P. v. Naresh 
(2011) 4 sec 324 - relied on. 
10. The Investigating Ol'licer, dealing with a murder case, 
is expected to be diligent, truthful and fair in his approach and 
his performance should always be in conformity with the police 
manual and a default or breach of duty may prove fatal to the 
prosecution's case. In the present case, the investigation was 
carried out with unconcerned and uninspiring performance. There 
was no firm and sincere effort with the needed zeal and spirit to 
bring home the guilt of the accused. [Para 26][408-F-G) 
11. There are. no compelling and substantial reasons for
MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
399 
the High Court to interfere with the order of acquittal when the A 
prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the 
accused. The accused has also already undergone nine years' of 
imprisonment and therefore it is a fit case inviting interference 
by this Court. (Para 26)(408-H; 409-A] 
Case Law Reference 
20l0 (13) SCR 311 
relied on 
Para 22 
1959 Suppl. SCR 875 
relied on 
Para 24 
2012 (8) SCR 740 
relied on 
Para 24 
2011 (15) SCR 34 
relied on 
Para 24 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
1141 of2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.03.2007 qfthe High Court 
ofM. P. at Gwalior in Government Appeal No. 36/96. 
B 
c 
Anurag Dubey, Ms. Anu Sawhney, Ms. Meenakshi P, S. R. 
D 
Setia. Advs. for the Appellant. 
C. D. Singh, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, D. S. Parmar, Sandeepan, Advs. 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
N.V. RAMANA, J. I. This appeal arises out of the judgment 
and or<ler dated I 91h March, 2007 passed by the High Court of Madhya 
Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 36of1996 whereby 
the High Court has partly allowed the appeal preferred by the State by 
confirming the judgment of the Trial Court forthe offence under Section 
148 of IPC and convicted the appellant herein for the offence under 
Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 
2. The brief facts of the case as culled out from the case of the 
prosecution are
that on 26'h December, 1987 at about I p.111. while 
Gambhir Singh (PW 7) (brother of the deceased) was having lunch at 
his home, the appellant along with a group of co-accused persons, each 
armed with deadly weapons rushed to his house hurling abusive filthy 
words and picked up a quarrel with his brother Jagannath Singh 
(deceased) who was sitting outside on a platform (Chabutara) along 
with his nephew Bir Singh (PW 11 ). When Jagannath Singh (deceased) 
raised objection to their behavior, the appellant fired a gunshot in the 
E 
F 
G 
H
400 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 8 S.C.R. 
A 
abdomen of the deceased as a result of which he fell down on the ground 
and succumbed to the injuries. 
B 
c 
3. Gambhir Singh (P.W. 7) carried the body of the deceased to the 
police station, Lahar on a bullock cart and lodged the FIR (Annexure P-
l) at 4.15 PM on the same day. Dilip Singh Yadav (PW-13) prepared 
inquest memo and Dr. A. K. Upadhyay (P.W. 12) conducted autopsy on 
the dead body. On the next day, Di lip Singh Yadav (PW 13) seized blood 
stained soil and plain soil from the place of occurrence, as per seizure 
memo. He also seized a gun, 12 live cartridges and 9 empty cartridges 
from the possession of appellant Mahavir Singh, an axe from Sobaran 
(co-accused) and a lathi from Kanched Singh (another co-accused) as 
per seizure memo and sent them to the Forensic Science Laboratory at 
Sagar. Consequently, statements of witnesses were recorded under 
section 161 of Cr.P.C., spot map was prepared and Charge-sheet was 
filed against the appellant under sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 of the 
IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lahar who committed 
D 
the case to Court of Sessions for Trial. The Trial Court framed charges 
u/s 302 and 148 of IPC against the appellant and under sections 148, 
302/149 of IPC against co-accused. All the accused pleaded not guilty 
and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution 
has examined 13 witnesses and marked several Exhibits while the
accused 
E 
F 
examined none in defence and no exhibits were marked on his behalf. 
4. The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 30•h November, 
1994 acquitted the appellant from the alleged offences mainly on the 
ground that there are contradictions in the evidence of eyewitnesses to 
that of medical evidence, prosecution has failed to prove beyond 
reasonable doubt formation of unlawful assembly with a motive of 
committing murder of the deceased and also failed to establish that the 
bullet had been fired with the firearm seized from the appellant. 
5. Dissatisfied with the Judgment of the Trial Court, the State 
preferred an appeal before the High Court claiming that the judgment of 
the Trial Court is perverse and illegal inasmuch as it did not appreciate 
G 
the prosecution evidence in right perspective and ignored the evidence 
of the eyewitnesses. The High Court, on a reanalysis of evidence of 
prosecution witnesses and other material available on record came to 
the conclusion that the Trial Court was right in acquitting the other co-
accused persons but found fault with the acquittal of the appellant under 
H 
Section 302 IPC. The High Court, therefore, partly al_lowed the appeal
MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
401 
[N.V. RAMANA, J.] 
by confirming the judgment of the Trial Court in respect of the charge 
A 
under Section 148 and convicted the appellant herein for the offence 
under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 
life. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court, the appellant 
approached this Court in appeal. 
6. Learned counsel forthe appellant submitted that the Trial Court 
B 
rightly acquitted the appellant, after elaborately considering the evidence 
on record, upon coming to the conclusion that there is lack of credibility 
in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, and, in particular, the medical 
and ocular testimonies are conflicting; there was considerable delay on 
the part of Investigating Officer in recording the evidences of alleged c 
eyewitnesses inasmuch as statements by none of the eyewitnesses were 
recorded on the day of occurrence of the incident. 
7. In the background of this factual matrix, learned counsel for 
• 
the appellant has advanced his arguments that since the appellant and 
victim parties have prior enmity over some pending criminal cases, the 
family members of the deceased, i.e., Gambhir Singh (PW 7), Shanti 
D 
Devi (PW 8), Bir Singh (PW 11) in connivance and with the help of a 
pocket witness Madho Singh (PW 9) concocted the story, by projecting 
himself as an eyewitness, and falsely implicated the appellant. According 
to him, this fact is clearly established with
the contradictions in the medical 
evidence and the unreliable evidence of the alleged interested eyewitness. 
The presence of Gambhir Singh (PW 7), at the time of occurrence, as 
heavily relied upon by the prosecution, proves to be false in the light of 
evidence of Bir Singh (PW 11) who nowhere in his testimony mentioned 
that Gambhir Singh (PW 7) alone came out of the house and witnessed 
the incident and Madho Singh (PW 9) claimed that soon after the shooting, 
Gambhir Singh (PW 7), Bir Singh (PW 11) and Shanti Devi (PW 8) 
came out of the house and therefore the accused fled away from the 
spot. It is also contended that the alleged eyewitnesses Gambhir Singh 
(PW 7), Bir Singh (PW 11) and Shanti Devi (PW 8) made material 
improvements in their testimonies before the Court in order to connect 
E 
F 
the case of prosecution with the medical report. Thus, the presence of G 
the eyewitnesses at the place of occurrence is doubtfu I. 
8. Learned counsel further urged that as per the site plan prepared 
by the Investigation Officer and also as per the medical evidence, the 
deceased Jagannath Singh was standing when he was shot. According 
to the medical report, the injuries sustained by the deceased are possible 
H
402 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
only when the assaulter stands at a height above the victim. Contrary to 
this, the case advanced by the prosecution, coupled with the evidence of 
alleged eyewitness, is that the appellant was standing on a lower level 
and the deceased was standing on a higher level i.e. on the platform. In 
his statement Madho Singh (PW 9) categorically mentioned that the 
deceased was sitting on the platform (Chabutara) and the appellant 
was standing on the ground, when he was shot. While the medical report 
indicated that the margins of the wounds were inverted and the bullet 
must have been fired from a distance of within 6 feet, and as per the 
testimonies of the direct eyewitnesses, the said distance varied between 
12 to 22.5 feet. The absence of human blood at the alleged place of 
incident i.e. on the platform and presence of blood on the ·ground in front 
of the platform further renders the prosecution's case even more doubtful. 
This blood also could not be matched with that of the deceased and 
therefore, recovery of weapons is ofno relevance. Simply (or the reason 
that the post-mortem report indicated that the deceased had died due to 
one single gunshot, and mere recovery of nine empty cartridges from 
the appellant does not in any way connect him with the crime, when the 
empty cartridges were not recovered from the place of incident and also 
in the absence of authenticated proof that the bullet shot at
the deceased 
was fired from the gun owned by the appellant. Learned counsel thus 
submits that the statements of eyewitness are not trustworthy. 
Considering the facts in their entirety, such as delayed recording of 
statements of the eyewitnesses and an unsuccessful attempt to reveal 
as to where the bullet had struck the victim and the unmatched statements 
by prosecution witnesses with that of the medical expert, the learned 
Trial Court was pleased to record the order of acquittal of the appellant. 
9. The learned counsel finally submitted that the High Court, on 
the other hand, failed to appreciate the evidence in true legal perspective 
and wrongly interfered with the well reasoned judgment of acquittal 
passed by the Trial Court based on a cogent and detailed reasoning and 
that the High Court committed a grave error by convicting the accused 
forthe offence under Section 302 !PC. The impugned judgment is contrary 
to the settled legal principles as it did not give due weightage to the 
medical evidence and rejected the same without ascribing any reason. 
Thus, interference by the High Court with the reasoned judgment of 
acquittal passed by the Trial Court is unwarranted. Learned counsel 
submits that in the light of settled legal principles, the conviction of the
MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
[N.V. RAMANA, J.] 
appellant by the High Court is vague and uncalled for and the same 
requires to be set aside by this Court. 
I 0. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, 
argued that the judgment of the Trial Court acquitting the appellant was 
wholly erroneous as it was passed without taking into account the 
prosecution evidence in its right perspective. There was no inconsistency 
in the evidence of eyewitnesses who were very much present at the 
scene of offence and the Trial Court was not justified in ignoring their 
evidences. The High Court, after re~appreciating the entire evidence on 
record, took a justifiable stand in convicting the accused under Section 
302 of the IPC by a well reasoned judgment and that there is no illegality 
or perversity in the conviction of the accused calling interference by this 
Court. 
11. We have heard the learned counsel on either side at length 
and perused the material available on record. Now it is imperative to 
look into the scope of interference by the appellate Court in an appeal 
against acquittal and whether the High Court was justified in convicting 
the accused under Section 302, IPC by reversing the order of acquittal 
passed by the Trial Court. 
12. In the criminal jurisprudence, an accused is presumed to be 
innocent till he is convicted by a competent Court after a full-fledged 
trial, and once the Trial Court by cogent reasoning acquits the accused, 
then
the reaffirmation of his innocence places more burden on the 
appellate Court while dealing with the appeal. No doubt, it is settled law 
that there are no fetters on the power of the appellate Com1 to review, 
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence both on facts and law upon 
which the order of acquittal is passed. But the court has to be very 
cautious in interfering with an appeal unless there are compelling and 
substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate 
Court while passing an order has to give clear reasoning for such a 
conclusion. 
13. It is no doubt true that there cannot be any straitjacket formula 
as to under what circumstances appellate Court can interfere with the 
order of acquittal, but the same depends on facts and circumstances of 
each case. In the case on hand, we have to examine the rationale behind 
the conclusion of the High Court in convicting the accused and the 
compelling reasons to deviate from the order of acquittal passed by the 
Trial Court. 
403 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
404 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
14. On a thorough analysis of the judgment impugned, it is evident 
that the High Court has not recorded any reasons for partly setting aside 
the judgment of the Trial Court which has acquitted all the accused 
persons from the same set of facts before it. The High Court which has 
set aside the acquittal order of the Trial Court has observed that the Trial 
Court has based its reasoning on guess work. We find it that even the 
High Cou11 has committed the same mistake and basing on the same 
facts and guess work has arrived at the conclusion that the appellant is 
guilty. 
15. It is specifically urged by the learned counsel for the appellant 
that as per the medical evidence, the injuries sustained by the deceased 
are possible only when the assaulter stands at a height above the victim. 
In this process, the court has guessed that Mahavir Singh (accused-
appellant) and Jagannath (deceased) were of similar height which is 
nobody's case and no evidence is available on record to come to a 
conclusion that the height of the two is same. The evidence available on 
record in this regard is a statement of Dr. A.K. Upadhyay (PW 12) that 
the deceased was of average Height. Now in order to establish that the 
bullet traveled in a downward direction, they have explained that the 
position of the gun usually kept in a downward position resting on the 
chest. Now the logical fallacy is to have assumed the height of
the platform 
whose height has not been recorded due to sloppy investigation by the 
Investigating Officers. There exists a reasonable doubt because of the 
fact that the height of the platform was not recorded and the same 
cannot be guessed at this point of time. Fu11hcr, the deposition of the 
Doctor is very clear that the shooter might have been at a lower level. 
While some of the witnesses have suggested that the deceased was on 
the ground while others have pointed out to the fact that he was standing 
on the platform. Therefore, from the same set of facts, the Trial Court 
as well as the High Court have arrived at different conclusions, such an 
exercise cannot be undertaken by the High Couii in an Appeal unless 
the conclusion drawn by the Trial Court cannot be sustained based on 
the facts and circumstances and when two conclusions are possible 
based on the evidence available on record, the appellate court should be 
all the more reluctant to interfere with the findings recorded by the Trial 
Court. 
16. It appears to us that the difference of opinion between the 
Courts below in deciding whether or not the appellant has committed the
MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
405 
~ 
[N.V. RAMANA, J.] 
offence with which he is charged, mainly revolves around the presence 
A 
of alleged direct eyewitnesses at the spot, possibility of appellant's 
inflicting firearm injury to the deceased in view of the positioning of the 
injury sustained by the deceased, the material infirmity, if any, and 
contradiction in the ocular and medical evidence. It is, however, clear 
that though, at the outset, the accused/appellant absolutely rejected the 
B 
allegation and pleaded not guilty by taking the defence of alibi that, on 
the date of incident, he was irrigating his field, but his claim has not been 
supported by any evidence. 
17. Undoubtedly, Gambhir Singh (PW 7-brother of the deceased) 
has accepted that certain criminal proceedings were pending between 
C 
the accused and his family members. He also admits that one case had 
already been filed by the accused prior to the incident. Admittedly, Shanti 
Devi (PW 8-wife of the deceased) also has deposed that there was an 
altercation between her son Yijender and Dhullu, on which they killed 
her husband. Thus, the parties are admittedly in hostile terms and the 
incident in question occurred in a broad day light at the residence of the 
D 
deceased by doing away his precious life. The prosecution, in support of 
its version, has heavily relied upon the statements of eyewitnesses 
Gambhir Singh (PW 7-complainant and also brother of the deceased), 
Shanti Devi (PW
8-wife of the deceased), Madho Singh (PW 9) and Bir 
Singh (PW I I-nephew of the deceased). The learned Trial Judge 
disbelieved the presence of eyewitnesses on the spot in view of delayed 
E 
recording of their statements by the Investigating Officer (PW 13) and 
also they remained unsuccessful in revealing exactly as to where the 
bullet had struck the deceased. We also find that nowhere in the First 
Information Report, the name or presence of eyewitness Shanti Devi 
(PW 8) was mentioned as a witness to the incident. 
F 
18. The High Court has attached a lot of weight to the evidence 
of the said Madho Singh (PW 9) as he is an independent witness. On 
perusal of the record, it appears that the said person already had deposed 
for the victim family on a number of previous occasions, that too against 
the same accused. This being the fact, it is important to analyze the 
G 
jurisprudence on interested witness. It is a settled principle that the 
evidence of interested witness needs to be scrutinized with utmost care. 
It can only be relied upon if the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is 
cogent, credible and trustworthy. Here we may refer to chance witness 
also. It is to be seen that although the evidence of a chance witness is 
H
406 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016) 8 S.C.R. 
acceptable in India, yet the chance witness has to reasonably explain 
the presence at that particular point more so when his deposition is being 
assailed as being tainted. 
19. A contradicted testimony of an interested witness cannot be 
usually treated as conclusive. The said Madho Singh (PW 9) has admitted 
that he has been a witness in another case against the accused for the 
deceased. Here it is to be seen that the said Madho Singh (PW 9) 
has been acting as a pocket witness for the family. Further, the 
credibility of this independent witness can be challenged on the 
fact that the commotion was only heard by the said Madho Singh 
(PW 9) whereas the rest of the members of the locality did not 
come for help. As Madho Singh (PW 9) is a chance witness as well as 
an interested witness herein, causes suspicion and does not inspire 
confidence. This admission by Madho Singh (PW 9) not only forces us 
to doubt the veracity of his own deposition but also has created doubts 
on the version ofGambhir Singh (PW 7). 
20. We have thoroughly examined the evidence of expert witnesses 
as well as other ocular witnesses. The evidence of Dr. A.K. Upadhyay 
(PW 12) reveals that when the deceased sustained bullet injury, he might 
have been in a standing position and the bullet would have entered from 
left side and exited from right side of the body. This fact, however, 
corroborated with the evidences of PW 7
(Gambhir Singh) and PW 8 
(Shanti Devi), but the statements of PW 9 (Madho Singh) and PW 11 
(Bir Singh) do not support it. Similarly, there were contradictions between 
the statements of Dr. Upadhyay (PW 12) and that of the eyewitnesses 
as to the distance and height of the assaulter while inflicting the grievous 
injury to the deceased and whether the deceased was standing on the 
platform (Chabutara) or came down from it while receiving the bullet 
injury. We find from the statement of Dr. Upadhyay (l'W 12) that he 
was not clear and definite to say exactly from what position and distance 
the assaulter could have tired the gun. 
21. Going by the seizure memo (Ex.P/3) apparently one gun, 12 
live and 9 empty cartridges were recovered from the appellant. The 
evidences of eyewitnesses support this fact and no question was put to 
the 1.0. after the recovery of the gun and cartridges, that whether he 
himself shot from the seized gun to create evidence. The prosecution's 
story is somewhat strengthened by the ballistic expett's report (Ex. P/
MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
407 
[N.V. RAMANA, J.] 
12) which affirms that the gun seized from the appellant was in perfect 
A 
order, the empty cartridges bore the same impression on pin as seized 
from the accused and the live cartridges were actually fired by the gun 
seized from the appellant. But nowhere it was mentioned that the death 
of the victim occurred by the bullet released from the seized gun. Merely 
the seizure of gun and cartridges from the appellant, the ongoing enmity 
between the parties on account of various criminal litigations and the 
altercation and exchange of heated words between the rival groups on 
the morning of the same day, cannot establish the guilt of accused beyond 
reasonable doubt. 
22. The position of law in cases where there is a contradiction 
between medical evidence and ocular evidence can be crystallized to 
the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater 
evidentiary value vis-a-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence 
makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor 
in the process of the evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical 
evidence goes far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular 
evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved [See: Abdul 
Sayeetl v . State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259) 
23. In view of contradictory statements by the prosecution 
witnesses coupled with the unmatched medical evidence, delay in 
recording of
statements of witnesses by the 1.0., non-availability of proper 
site plan and in the absence of authenticated ballistic expert report that 
the bullet had been fired with the seized gun of the appellant, the Trial 
Comi had to decide the case against the prosecution and discharge the 
appellant from the charges. The High Court, upon carrying the exercise 
of reappreciation of evidence, formed the view that the reasons for delay 
in recording the statements of witnesses have been properly explained; 
that as soon as the bullet struck on the abdomen of the deceased, he 
immediately fell down from the platform. It further observed that though 
the name of Shanti Devi (PW 8) was not mentioned in the FIR, there is 
positive evidence on record to establish her presence at the time of 
incident along with other eyewitnesses and this fact has been established 
by their corroborative statements and there is no reason to disbelieve 
their statements. Here it is worthwhile to mention that both the Courts 
below formed a common opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove 
the charges under Sections 148 and 302/149 of !PC against the co-
accused and discharged them from those charges. The disagreement 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
408 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
between the Trial Court and the High Court is only in respect of the 
charge under Section 302, IPC against the appellant. 
24. It is the duty of the Apex Court to separate chaff from the 
husk and to dredge the truth from the pandemonium of Statements. It is 
but natural for human beings to state variant statements due to time gap 
B 
but if such statements go to defeat the core of the prosecution then such 
contradictions are material and the Court has to be mindful of such 
statements [See : Ta/lsi/dltar Sing/I v. State of UP, AIR 1959 SC 
1012; P11d/1u Raja v. State, (2012) 11 SCC 196; State of UP vs. 
Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324]. The case in hand is a fit case, wherein 
there are material exaggerations and contradictions, which inevitably 
C 
raises doubt which is reasonable in normal circumstances and keeping 
in view the substratum of the prosecution case, we cannot infer beyond 
reasonable doubt that the appellant caused the death of the deceased. 
25. Normally, when a culprit perpetrates a heinous crime of murder 
and takes away the life of a human being, if appropriate punishment is 
D 
not awarded to that offender, the Court will be failing in its duty. Such 
crime, when indulged by a criminal blatantly, is not committed against an 
individual alone, but is committed against the society as well to which 
the criminal and victim are a part. It needs no emphasis from this Court 
that the punishment to be awarded for such
a crime must be relevant 
E 
and it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality 
with which the crime has been carried out. 
26. Here in the instant case, no doubt, an innocent man has lost 
his life at the hands of another man, and looking at the way in which the 
investigation was handled, we are sure to observe that it was carried out 
F 
in a lackluster manner. The approach of the Investigating Officer in 
recording the statements of witnesses, collecting the evidence and 
preparation of site map has remained unmindful. The Investigating 
Officer, dealing with a murder case, is expected to be diligent, truthful 
and fair in his approach and his performance should always be in 
conformity with the police manual and a default or breach of duty may 
G 
prove fatal to the prosecution's case. We may hasten to add that in the 
present case the investigation was carried out with unconcerned and 
uninspiring performance. There was no firm and sincere effort with the 
needed zeal and spirit to bring home the guilt of the accused. We feel 
that there are no compelling and substantial reasons for the High Court 
H 
to interfere with the order of acquittal when the prosecution has miserably
MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
409 
[N.V. RAMANA, J.] 
failed to establish the guilt of the accused. Added to this, the accused 
A 
has already undergone nine years' of imprisonment and we feel that it is 
a fit case inviting interference by this Court. 
27. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction 
and order of sentence passed by the High Court is set aside. Consequently, 
the appellant shall be set at I iberty forthwith if not required in any other B 
case. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Appeal allowed,