ROHTAS & ANR. versus THE STATE OF HARYANA
[2019] 16 S.C.R. 861, Supreme Court of India, 2019
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Facts
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
861
ROHTAS & ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal No.764 of 2009)
NOVEMBER 05, 2019
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Art.136 – Special leave petition – Re-
appreciation of evidence by Supreme Court – Permissibility – Held:
Supreme Court, while entertaining an appeal by way of special
leave under Art.136, ordinarily, will not attempt to re-appreciate
the evidence on record unless the decision of the Trial Court or
the High Court is shown to have committed a manifest error of law
or procedure or the conclusion reached by the courts below is, on
the face of it, perverse – Merely because another view on the same
evidence is possible, that cannot be the basis to interfere with the
finding of fact recorded by the Courts below much less concurrent
finding of facts.
Penal Code, 1860: s.302/34 – Six accused – Knife blows on
the stomach of the victim-deceased by the appellants causing fatal
injuries – Evidence of eye-witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) – Conviction
of appellants-accused no.1 and 2 and acquittal of others –
Prosecution case was that on the fateful day, all the accused
persons obstructed the deceased who was riding a motorcycle –
Immediately, after he was stopped, both the appellants inflicted
knife blows on the stomach of the deceased one after the other –
Evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 was accepted by the Trial Court as
well as the High Court as truthful – No reason to deviate from that
concurrent view taken by the Courts
below – Deficiencies pointed
out by the appellants in the investigation were insignificant and
trivial and whole evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 was corroborated
by the other evidence in the form of medical reports and recovery
of human blood stained soil from the spot where the deceased was
assaulted – Further, there was no delay in lodging FIR –Recovery
of weapon used by accused No.1 during the commission of the
offence also reinforced the role and involvement of the appellants
in the commission of the crime – The quality substantive evidence
   [2019] 16 S.C.R. 861
861
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
862
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
on record clearly established the guilt of the appellants – The fact
that there was no evidence about the previous enmity and that no
evidence was produced by the prosecution in that regard, cannot
be the basis to reverse the concurrent view taken by two courts
below, recording finding of guilt against the appellants – Order
of conviction of appellants is not interfered with.
Criminal Law: Benefit of doubt – Wrong benefit given to
acquitted accused cannot enure to the advantage of the convicted
accused against whom clear, truthful and unassailable evidence
was available.
Witnesses: Reaction of witnesses – Held: There cannot be
uniformity in the reaction of witnesses – There is possibility of
variation and difference in the behaviour of witnesses or their
reactions from situation to situation and individual to individual –
The Court must not decipher the evidence on unrealistic basis –
The difference in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, in
the instant case, about the conditions of the deceased when he was
admitted in the hospital, therefore, would not take the matter any
further especially when the medical reports clearly indicated that
he was admitted in the hospital in semi-conscious state and was
declared dead by the doctor only thereafter.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It is well established position in law that
Supreme Court, while entertaining an appeal by way of special
leave under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily,
will not attempt to reappreciate the evidence on record unless
the decision of the Trial Court or the High Court is shown to
have committed a manifest error of law or procedure or the
conclusion reached by the Courts below is, on the face of it,
perverse. [Para 12] [872-E]
2. PW-1 was extensively cross-examined but the cross-
examination did not make any dent with regard to his statement
in the examination-in-chief that Accused No.1 and Accused No.2
gave knife blow each on the stomach of the victim-deceased and
caused the fatal injuries. Same was the position with regard to
the evidence of PW-2. Even he plainly mentioned about the
manner in which the deceased was stopped by all the accused
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
863
persons when he was riding his motorcycle and immediately
thereafter Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 inflicted knife blows
on his stomach one after the other. The fact that similar role was
ascribed to Accused No.4 and Accused No.6 but the High Court
acquitted them by giving benefit of doubt cannot be the basis to
undermine the quality of evidence which already came on record.
Neither the State nor the complainant assailed the finding
recorded by the High Court qua acquitted accused. That would
not mean that a wrong relief given to co-accused should also be
given to the appellants against whom clinching evidence was on
record about the manner in which the offence was committed
by them. [Paras 15-16] [876-F-G; 877-E-H]
3. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, the eye witnesses was
that all the accused persons obstructed the deceased who was
riding a motorcycle. Immediately, after he was stopped, both the
appellants inflicted knife blows on the stomach of the deceased
one after the other. This role of the appellants was distinct.
Thereafter the deceased attempted to flee away from the spot
when he was stopped by the other accused persons and two of
them inflicted knife blows one after the other. The events,
therefore, can be segregated.  So far as the second event is
concerned, the Trial Court and the High Court gave benefit of
doubt to the concerned accused. In that sense, the appellants
are not concerned with that part of the event. Neither the State
nor the
complainant has assailed the acquittal of other accused.
In any case, wrong benefit given to those accused cannot enure
to the advantage of the appellants against whom clear, truthful
and unassailable evidence is forthcoming. For, neither the
presence of PW-1 and PW-2 can be doubted nor their evidence
can be discarded on the specious ground that they are related
to the deceased and are therefore interested witnesses.
Indubitably, just because the witnesses are related cannot be the
basis to discard their evidence, if it is otherwise natural and
truthful. There is no reason to deviate from that concurrent view
taken by the Courts below.  [Paras 18-20] [878-C-G; 879-A]
4. The so-called deficiencies pointed out by the appellants
in the investigation or the prosecution case, are insignificant and
trivial and cannot be the basis to reject the whole evidence of
ROHTAS & ANR. v. THE STATE OF HARYANA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
864
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
PW-1 and PW-2 which is corroborated by the other evidence in
the form of medical reports and recovery of human blood stained
soil from the spot near the hospital where the deceased was
assaulted by the accused. The fact that the blood group of the
human blood stained soil cannot be ascertained, can be no basis
to discard that piece of evidence. Even the recovery of weapon
used by Accused No.1 during the commission of the offence
reinforces the role and involvement of the appellants in the
commission of the crime. The quality substantive evidence on
record clearly establishes the guilt of the appellants. [Para 22]
[882-A-C]
5. There cannot be uniformity in the reaction of witnesses.
The Court must not decipher the evidence on unrealistic basis.
There can be no hard and fast rule about the uniformity in human
reaction. The difference in the statements of the prosecution
witnesses about the conditions of the deceased when he was
admitted in the hospital, therefore, does not take the matter any
further especially when the medical reports clearly indicate that
he was admitted in the hospital in semi-conscious state and was
declared dead by the doctor only thereafter. [Para 23] [882-D-
E]
6. As regards, the delay in registration of FIR, that aspect
was also considered by the Trial Court and the finding recorded
by the Trial Court rejecting that defence plea found favour with
the High Court. There has been no delay as is
evident from the
contemporaneous record. The deceased was admitted in hospital
immediately after the incident. He was declared dead at 11.00
p.m. The City Police Station was informed by the doctor at 11.30
p.m. Thereafter, PW-1 complained to ASI (PW-5) near hospital
building and finally the FIR was registered at 0015 hrs. on the
night between 25th and 26th April, 1998. In view of that, the view
taken by the Trial Court that there was no delay in registration
of the FIR is upheld in the fact situation of the instant case.
[Paras 24-26] [882-F; 883-C-D; 884-B-C]
7. The defence took self-contradictory stand. First, it was
asserted that the deceased sustained injuries in the first incident
which had occurred at 6.30 p.m. on the same evening. However,
no evidence in support of that plea was forthcoming. Then, the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
865
alternative plea taken by the defence was that the deceased was,
in fact, injured at some other place and was brought in a three-
wheeler to the hospital. Even this plea of the accused was held
to be figment of imagination and without any evidence in support
thereof. On the other hand, the prosecution produced evidence
in the form of human blood soiled mud from the spot near the
hospital where the incident in question had occurred as stated
by PW-1 and PW-2. Even the fact that the accused were
acquitted in the cross-cases filed with regard to the first incident
which took place at 6.30 p.m. on the same evening would not
take the matter any further for the appellants. That was an
independent incident whereas the finding of guilt recorded
against the appellants was concerning the incident which had
taken place at 8.30 p.m. near the Government Hospital as proved
by the prosecution witnesses. [Paras 27-28] [884-C-G]
Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration (1975) 4 SCC
649 ; Mst. Dalbir Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab
(1976) 4 SCC 158 : [1977] 1 SCR 280 ; Ramanbhai
Naranbhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat (1999) 9
JT 319 : [1999] 5 Suppl. SCR 41 ; Chandra Bihari
Gautam & Ors. v. State of Bihar JT (2002) 4 SC 62:
[2002] 2 SCR 1164; Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb
& Ors. v. State of U.P. JT (2006) 1 SC 428 : [2006] 1
SCR 519 ; Rizan & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh
(2003) 2 SCC 661 : [2003] 1 SCR 457 ; State of Uttar
Pradesh v. Ram Kumar & Ors. (2017) 14 SCC 614 ;
Brahm Swaroop & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011)
6 SCC 288 : [2010] 15 SCR 1 Dilawar Singh & Ors.
v. State of Haryana (2015) 1 SCC 737 : [2014] 7 SCR
844 ; State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Madhusudhan Rao
(2008) 15 SCC 582 : [2008] 14 SCR 1170 ; Kishan
Singh (Dead) Through LRs v. Gurpal Singh & Ors.
(2010) 8 SCC 775 : [2010] 10 SCR 16 – relied on.
State of U.P. v. Moti Ram & Ors. (1990) 4 SCC 389 :
[1990] 2 SCR 939 ; Balaka Singh & Ors. v. The State
of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 511 : [1975] Suppl. SCR 129
– distinguished.
ROHTAS & ANR. v. THE STATE OF HARYANA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
866
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
(1975) 4 SCC 649
relied on
Para 12
[1977] 1 SCR 280
relied on
Para 12
[1999] 5 Suppl. SCR 41
relied on
Para 12
[2002] 2 SCR 1164
relied on
Para12
[2006] 1 SCR 519
relied on
Para 12
[1990] 2 SCR 939
distinguished
Para 17
[1975] Suppl. SCR 129
distinguished
Para 17
[2003] 1 SCR 457
relied on
Para 20
(2017) 14 SCC 614
relied on
Para 21
[2010] 15 SCR 1
relied on
Para 21
[2014] 7 SCR 844
relied on
Para 23
[2008] 14 SCR 1170
relied on
Para 24
[2010] 10 SCR 16
relied on
Para 25
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 764 of 2009.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.03.2008 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.
241-DB of 1999.
Arvind Kumar, Mrs. Laxmi Arvind, Pradeep Kumar Mathur,
Nawal Kishore, Deepankar, Chiranjeev Johri, Chandra Nand Jha, M.
K. Tiwari, Advs. for the Appellants.
Dr. Monika Gusain, Adv. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.
1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated
13th March, 2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.241-DB of 1999, whereby the
conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants Rohtas (Accused
No.1) and Surender Singh (Accused No.2) for offences punishable under
Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) by the Trial Court
came to be confirmed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
867
2. Initially, six accused were tried for the offence registered as
FIR No.298 on 26th April, 1998 at Police Station, City Palwal. Bishan
Singh (PW-1) reported the matter to the police station whose statement
came to be recorded on 25th April, 1998 at about 11.30 p.m., alleging
that at about 6.30 p.m. a quarrel had taken place between two groups.
He was member of one of the groups whereas Roop Chand (Accused
No.4) was member of another group that had assaulted his brother Ved
Prakash and nephew Anil Kumar. They had sustained injuries and were
taken to Government Hospital, Palwal by Bishan Singh (PW-1), Rati
Chand (father of Anil Kumar) and Baljit Singh (PW-2) for treatment.
At about 8.30 p.m., when they were standing at the gate of Government
Hospital Palwal, his brother Mohar Pal arrived there on a motorcycle.
He was told to bring money from a commission agent at Anaj Mandi,
Palwal. When Mohar Pal was leaving towards Anaj Mandi, at a
distance of about ten paces from the gate of the hospital, all the six
accused persons came from the front side and stopped his motorcycle.
Soon thereafter, appellants Rohtas (Accused No.1) and Surender Singh
(Accused No.2) both inflicted knife blows one after the other in the
stomach of Mohar Pal. Immediately thereafter, Mohar Pal attempted
to run away by raising alarm “mar diya, mar diya”. Billu (Accused
No.5) and Rajender (Accused No.3) caught hold of Mohar Pal and
Dev Kumar (Accused No.6) gave one knife blow in the
abdomen of
Mohar Pal. Similarly, Roop Chand (Accused No.4) gave knife blow in
the abdomen of Mohar Pal. He also gave a knife blow on the waist of
Mohar Pal as a result of which Mohar Pal fell down. It is stated that
Bishan Singh, Ravi, Ved Prakash, Anil and Baljit Singh (PW-2), who
were present at the scene, ran towards the spot and on seeing them,
the accused persons ran away. Thereafter, Mohar Pal was immediately
removed to the hospital in injured condition where he succumbed to
the injuries and was declared dead. On the basis of this FIR, the
investigation was taken over by ASI Gian Singh (PW-6).
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed
against six accused persons for offence punishable under Sections 148,
302 and 149 IPC. The trial commenced before the Additional Sessions
Judge (I), Faridabad being Sessions Case No.40 of 1998. Both sides
produced witnesses. According to the accused persons, they were falsely
implicated. Further, it is their stand that Mohar Pal was injured in the
previous incident which had taken place at 6.30 p.m. on the same
evening. He was member of the aggressor party. During the fight which
ROHTAS & ANR. v. THE STATE OF HARYANA
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
868
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
took place, he must have sustained injuries at the hands of opposite
party. It was also the case of the accused that Mohar Pal had suffered
injuries at some other place near Anaj Mandi and he was brought to
the hospital in a three-wheeler. In other words, the incident did not
happen near the hospital.
4. On the basis of such alternative plea, the accused persons
denied their involvement in the commission of the offence. After
completion of the trial and recording of statements of the concerned
accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
the Trial Court finally convicted Rohtas (Accused No.1), Surender Singh
(Accused No.2), Roop Chand (Accused No.4) and Dev Kumar
(Accused No.6) but acquitted Rajender (Accused No.3) and Billu
(Accused No.5) by giving them benefit of doubt. The Trial Court
accordingly convicted the four accused under Section 302 read with
Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and
to pay fine of Rs.30,000/- each to the widow of deceased Mohar Pal,
in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years. This
decision was carried in appeal by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6 being
Criminal Appeal No.241-DB of 1999 before the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh. The High Court, on reappreciation of the
evidence on record, affirmed the finding of guilt against the appellants
Rohtas (Accused No.1) and Surender Singh (Accused No.2) but
acquitted
Roop Chand (Accused No.4) and Dev Kumar (Accused No.6)
by giving them benefit of doubt. As regards the appellants, the High
Court, vide impugned judgment, opined that the evidence on record
clearly established their involvement in the commission of the offence
and causing death of Mohar Pal by inflicting knife blow injuries to which
he eventually succumbed.
5. Resultantly, the appellants, Rohtas (Accused No.1) and
Surender Singh (Accused No.2) have assailed the finding of guilt
recorded against them by way of this appeal, arising from special leave
petition.
6. Neither the State nor the complainant had challenged the
acquittal of Rajender (Accused No.3) and Billu (Accused No.5) by the
Trial Court nor the acquittal of Roop Chand (Accused No.4) and Dev
Kumar (Accused No.6) by the High Court. Their acquittal has become
final.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
869
7. In the present appeal, the assail is based essentially on the
argument that both the Courts below have misread or misappreciated
the evidence on record. The evidence of Bishan Singh (PW-1) and Baljit
Singh (PW-2) was unreliable and was an attempt to falsely implicate
the appellants. It is urged that the prosecution has failed to prove the
case beyond reasonable doubt even against the appellants. According
to the appellants, the real and core facts have not been properly
investigated and the prosecution’s case is replete with several
deficiencies such as :-
“(i) No seizure list of clothes of deceased made by IO;
(ii) Blood group of deceased was not ascertained, hence
no link was established between blood found on alleged
kurta and blood stained earth with the blood of the
deceased. Thus the prosecution has totally failed to
establish the link between blood found on the seized
articles and blood of the deceased;
(iii) Prosecution though allegedly recovered the alleged knife
and sent it to FSL, but it did not produce the said knife
in the Court nor got it exhibited, besides there were no
blood stains, hence the recovered knife cannot be
connected with this crime;
(iv) Shirt was seized as per recovery memo Ex. PB, but
Kurta was replaced while sending it to FSL;
(v) Kurta if worn by the deceased while he was injured by
knife, must have cut signs but there was none;
(vi) No Independent Panchas (Recovery witness) examined
by the prosecution;
(vii) The IO has
miserably failed to show in the Sketch plan
Ex PH as to from which place or places, trail of blood
was there as per FIR and alleged blood recovered, since
in the alleged first attack by appellants the deceased
was on motor cycle, which he left and tried to run away
by making noise “mar diya mar diya” and thereafter he
was knived at least two to three times by Roop Chand
and Devi;
ROHTAS & ANR. v. THE STATE OF HARYANA
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
870
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
(viii) No Independent witness examined either for the
occurance or for the alleged Recovery and Inquest
Report;
(ix) The most important and valuable witnesses i.e. Anil and
Ved Prakash were withheld by the prosecution, who also
participated in the earlier village incident @ 6.30 pm and
got injured;
(x) Prosecution did not examine any eye witness of the
incident which occurred in the village at about 6.30 pm
on 25/04/1998, which was shown as motive for the
present incident allegedly @ 8.30 pm.
(xi) Prosecution purposely withheld MLR of the deceased
which was proved by the defence through DW-2 and
on the said MLR and injuries sustained by Moharpal,
Ved Prakash & Anil, there was a cross case through
the FIR lodged by injured Ved Prakash u/s 323/324/506/
149 r/w 148 IPC at PS Sadar, Case was tried by Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Palwal, and the accused were
acquitted vide judgment dated 24/01/2007;
(xii) Sketch plan Ex PH does not show as to where
motorcycle was thrown, where deceased threw away
his clothes, where the witnesses PW-1, PW-2 and their
Associates were standing and from which place body
of the deceased was lifted and brought to the Hospital.
Hence the prosecution has miserably failed to connect
the place of occurrence with the commission of offence;
(xiii) In this case FIR appears to be concocted, fabricated
and recorded and after consultations etc. It appears that
FIR was lodged only after Inquest report
where the time
of death was recorded as 11.50 AM on the dictates of
PW-1 and also there would have been fully disclosed
genesis of the crime, names of the assailants, name of
the weapon and names of the witnesses etc, which are
completely missing in the Inquest report.
(xiv) There is the variance between the alleged FIR and
report of IO for registering case;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
871
(xv) Non-seizure of Motor Cycle;
(xvi) Non production of Anil and Ved Prakash as witnesses
and various other irregularities and serious lapses of the
Investigation including improper statement of IO PW-6
which entitles benefit of doubt to the appellants.”
8. According to the appellants, the Trial Court and the High Court
have completely glossed over the glaring infirmities and foundational
defects of the prosecution which were fatal, and in any case, the
appellants deserved similar benefit of doubt as given to other accused
persons by the Trial Court and then by the High Court. The role of the
other accused persons spoken about by the prosecution witnesses is
no different than that ascribed to the appellants. Accordingly, it is urged
that the appellants be acquitted as the prosecution has failed to prove
their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and in any case, they should be
given benefit of doubt as is given to accused Roop Chand (Accused
No.4) and Dev Kumar (Accused No.6) by the High Court.
9. Learned counsel for the State has adopted the reasons
recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court to distinguish the case
of the appellants Rohtas (Accused No.1) and Surender Singh (Accused
No.2), who have been named by the prosecution witnesses, and because
there is clinching evidence on record to establish their guilt. It is urged
that there is no deficiency in the investigation nor in the evidence
produced before the Court which commended the Trial Court as
well
as the High Court to record finding of guilt against the appellants. It
cannot be said to be inadequate in any manner. On the other hand, it is
evident that the accused persons took contradictory plea by first
asserting that Mohar Pal sustained injuries during the fight between two
groups in the earlier incident which had occurred at 6.30 p.m. on the
same evening. Having realised that the said plea cannot be substantiated
by them, alternative plea was taken that the incident in question did
not occur near the Government hospital and the injuries suffered by
Mohar Pal were sustained at some other place near Anaj Mandi from
where he was brought in a three-wheeler to the hospital for being
admitted for treatment. However, no evidence was produced by the
accused to substantiate that fact. It is urged by the State that just
because co-accused have been acquitted, that does not warrant grant
of same relief to the appellants despite the clinching evidence against
them about their role and the manner of commission of offence by them.
ROHTAS & ANR. v. THE STATE OF HARYANA
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
872
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
The learned counsel for the State contended that even if the State has
not challenged the acquittal of other accused persons, that by itself
cannot be the basis to acquit the appellants herein, for there is sufficient
evidence against them and has been produced by the prosecution to
bring home their guilt. It is thus contended that the benefit given to other
accused by the High Court cannot be the basis to give similar benefit
to the appellants.
10. It is submitted that the evidence of Bishan Singh (PW-1) and
Baljit Singh (PW-2), who were the eye-witnesses, cannot be undermined,
at least against the appellants before this Court. It is well established
position that the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no
general applicability in India and the Court is not debarred from
separating the truth from the falsehood and accepting a part of the
evidence. It is urged that the appeal is devoid of merits and the same
be dismissed.
11. We have heard Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate for the
appellants and Dr. Monika Gusain Advocate for the respondent State.
12. It is well established position in law that this Court, while
entertaining an appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of
the Constitution of India, ordinarily, will not attempt to reappreciate the
evidence on record unless the decision of the Trial Court or the High
Court is shown to have committed a manifest error of law or procedure
or the conclusion
reached by the Courts below is, on the face of it,
perverse. Merely because another view on the same evidence is
possible, that cannot be the basis to interfere with the finding of fact
recorded by the Courts below much less concurrent finding of facts.
(See Duli Chand vs. Delhi Administration1; Mst. Dalbir Kaur &
Ors. vs. State of Punjab2; Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel & Ors. vs.
State of Gujarat3; Chandra Bihari Gautam & Ors. vs. State of
Bihar4; and Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb & Ors. vs. State of
U.P.5).
13. Despite this settled position, we may venture to wade through
the evidence on record to reassure ourselves as to whether the Trial
1 (1975) 4 SCC 649
2 (1976) 4 SCC 158
3 (JT 1999 (9) SC 319
4 JT 2002 (4) SC 62
5 JT 2006 (1) SC 428
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
873
Court and the High Court have committed manifest error bordering on
perversity or error apparent on the face of record. As regards the role
of the appellants, Rohtas (Accused No.1) and Surender Singh (Accused
No.2), the Trial Court analysed the testimonies of eye-witnesses Bishan
Singh (PW-1) and Baljit Singh (PW-2) and found them to be natural
and trustworthy. The Trial Court, observed as follows :-
“20. ………………… Both of them have stated that in the
incident which had taken place in the village, Anil and Ved
Parkash from their side had received injuries and that in that
connection they had brought them to General Hospital Palwal
where Mohar Pal arrived at his motor cycle at 8.30 p.m. and
that when Mohar Pal left for Anaj Mandi, Palwal for bringing
some money from some commission agent, then he was way laid
by the accused persons and then caused injuries by means of
knives. No suggestion was given to these PWs that Mohar Pal
had received injuries along with Anil and Ved Prakash in the
village. They were rather given the suggestions that Baljit (PW-
2) and Mohar Pal had gone to Anaj Mandi from the village after
the incident had taken place there and both of them had consumed
liquor. They were further given the suggestion that Mohar Pal
had received injuries in the Anaj Mandi Palwal and Baljit had
brought him in a rickshaw for being admitted in the nursing home
of Dr. Lokesh which was situated in the vicinity of General
Hospital Palwal and when Mohar Pal
died then taking undue
advantage of his death, this false story was coined implicating
the accused. They were further given the suggestion that Mohar
Pal had received injuries from sharp edged railings of the kitchen
garden of the commission agent to whom he had gone. No
suggestion at all was given that Mohar Pal was rendered injured
for the incident that took place in the evening in the village. Thus,
the plea that the accused party caused injuries to Mohar Pal in
the right of private defence is absolutely baseless.
21. It is true that in the FIR No.152 dated 28/4/1998 vide Ex.
DB recorded at Police Station Sadar Palwal against the
complainant party, it was mentioned that Anil, Ved Prakash and
Mohar Pal were caused injuries in defence. This first information
report was lodged by Rajinder accused. However, no reliance
can be placed upon this version as the same came into existence
after the death of Mohar Pal had taken place. A perusal of the
ROHTAS & ANR. v. THE STATE OF HARYANA
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
874
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
Fir Ex. DB shows that the same came to be recorded on the
basis of rapat No.5 dated 26.1.1998 at 9 a.m. By that time, Mohar
Pal had expired and to us allegation that he had (sic) been caused
injuries in the incident of 25.4.1998 at 6.30 p.m. in the village
cannot be given any credence. Morever, it is well established that
the FIR is not a substantive evidence by itself. The same can
be used only for the purpose of contradicting or corroborating a
particular versions. The accused have not examined any witness
in their defence who could depose that Mohar Pal had been
caused injuries by the accused party in their right of private
defence in the incident that took place in the village.”
The Trial Court, further observed :-
“But in the case this Judgment does not help to the accused in
any manner because there is no whisper of suggestion even in
the cross examination of Bishan Singh and Baljit Singh PWs that
Mohar Pal had been cause injuries in the incident which took
place on 25.4.1998 evening in the village.”
The Trial Court again observed :-
“24. It is true that Bishan Singh (PW-1) Baljit (PW-2) Ratti
Chand, Ved Prakash and Anil could not case effective resistance
when Mohar Pal was assaulted by the accused within their sight
(sic). But that by itself is no ground to paint their statements with
black color. Incident after all had taken place near General
Hospital, Palwal as the investigating officer ASI Gian Singh also
lifted blood stained earth from there. Presence of these persons
there was natural as they must have come to obtain treatment
for Anil and Ved Parkash, who had received injuries in the prior
altercation that took place in the village.
……….. In the present case, the incident appears to have taken
place all of a sudden near the hospital. It might have lasted only
2-3 minutes, Bishan Singh, Baljit Singh and thus it is not surprising
that they could not effectively intervene (sic) by chasing the
accused.”
The High Court, on reappreciation of the evidence, once again
observed as follows :-
“PW-1 Bishan Singh and PW 2 Baljit Singh can be safely relied
upon about Mohar Pal having been assaulted in the occurrence
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
875
at 8.30 PM. Contention that there was delay in FIR or that the
FIR was ante-timed or that the genesis of the occurrence was
suppressed, based only on the ground that in the inquest report,
number of the FIR and names of the FIR and names of the
accused were not mentioned, has no merit. Statement of Bishan
Singh PW 1 is duly recorded in the inquest report and entire
version given by him in the FIR including presence of PW 2 Baljit
Singh finds mention therein. Reading of a part of the statement
separately recorded that he identified the dead body of which
post mortem was being done, as statement recorded later is not
justified. Testimony of PW 1 Bishan Singh and PW 2 Baljit Singh
cannot be rejected but has to be carefully appreciated by
accepting that part which may be clearly reliable and by not
accepting the part which may not be safe to be relied upon. Role
of each accused has to be carefully considered.
According to the version given by PWs, when Mohar Pal had
left for the Anaz Mandi on motor cycle, he was stopped by the
accused. Rohtas and Surender, gave one knife blow each in the
stomach of Mohar Pal. We do not find any reason to reject this
part of the version with regard to Rohtas and Surender. Rohtas
and Surender are sons of Shiv Singh, who according to the
defence, were injured in the earlier incident. A knife has been
recovered from Rohtas. Opening of the attack by Rohtas and
Surender could have been easily noticed by Bishan Singh PW1
and PW 2
Baljit Singh, whose presence on the spot is established
by prompt lodging of the FIR. Mere fact that their names are
not mentioned in the MLR, does not create any doubt. In the
MLR, it has not been mentioned as to who brought the injured
to the hospital. The fact that the injured was described as having
died, instead of having been injured, is not a major discrepancy.
The injured died within half an hour and immediately the police
was informed. The I.O., recorded the statement of Bishan Singh
PW 1 in the hospital itself soon after the death. FIR was formally
registered immediately at 12.45 AM in the night and copy was
received by the Magistrate in the night itself by 4 AM. Case of
the prosecution is to be examined a whole and any minor
discrepancy cannot be taken in isolation. Mere fact that the said
witnesses did not intervene to save the deceased, is of no effect.
The witnesses were at some distance and within minutes, the
ROHTAS & ANR. v. THE STATE OF HARYANA
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
876
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
accused caused injuries to the deceased. The witnesses had, thus,
no opportunity to intervene. Discrepancy of the I.O. in not
recovering the motor cycle or not showing the source of light,
does not create any suspicion about the version of the
prosecution.”
14. After perusing the evidence of Bishan Singh (PW-1), we have
no hesitation in taking the view that the concurrent finding of fact
recorded by the two Courts below needs no interference. Bishan Singh
(PW-1) in his examination-in-chief has deposed as follows :-
“At about (sic) 8.30 p.m. on the same day I, Rati Chand and
Baljit were talking at the gate of G.H. Palwal. My brother Mohar
Pal also came there on a motor cycle. I then sent Mohar Pal
back for bringing money from a commission agent in the Anaz
Mandi, Palwal.
Mohar Pal must have crossed hardly a distance of 10 paces that
the accused Rohtas, Surender, Billu, Rajender, Roopi and Devi
present in the Court came there and they made to stop the Mohar
Pal’s motor cycle. Rohtas and Surender then gave one knife blow
each on the abdomen of Mohar Pal. Leaving his motor cycle,
Mohar Pal then started running and raised the alarm of mar-diya
mardiya. Billu and Rajender then caught him and Roopi accused
gave a knife blow on his back and Devi accused gave another
knife blow on his abdomen with the result that Mohar Pal died
at the spot. When I, Rati Chand, Ved Parkash and Anil etc.
started running for saving Mohar Pal,
then the accused persons
ran away.”
15. He has been extensively cross-examined but the cross-
examination does not make any dent with regard to his statement in
the examination-in-chief that Rohtas (Accused No.1) and Surender
Singh (Accused No.2) gave knife blow each on the stomach of Mohar
Pal and caused the fatal injuries. Dr. Ramesh Leekha (PW-5) has
spoken about the injuries in his evidence and the same also can be
noticed from the post-mortem report of Mohar Pal that he had sustained
the following injuries :-
“1. Incised wound 3 x 0.25 cm, 8 cm above and lateral to
umbilicus. On the opening of the abdomen, the middle
log of liver was found cut badly with huge quantity of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
877
blood in the abdominal cavity. Superficial and deep facie
with omentum and peritoneum was cut through and
through.
2. Incised wound 2.5 x 0.5 cm which was 2 cm above and
lateral to umbilicus underlying superficial and deep facia
and omentum was cut on the left side of the abdomen.
3. Reddish abrasion 8 cm long and linear in shape and 8
cm above and lateral to the left side of umbilicus.
4. Incised wound 1 x 0.5 cm n the left supra scapular
region underlying muscles were cut with no injury to
lung or pleura.”
XXX
XXX
XXX
VI-REMARKS BY MEDICAL OFFICER
In my opinion the cause of death in this case in shock and
haemorrhage (sic) as a result of injuries sustained by the
deceased, particularly No.1 which alone in sufficient to cause
death in an ordinary course of nature. All injuries are ante mortem
in nature.”
16. Suffice it to observe that the cross-examination of Bishan
Singh (PW-1) does not take the matter any further for the appellants,
as is rightly held by the two Courts below. Same is the position with
regard to the evidence of Baljit Singh (PW-2). Even he has plainly
mentioned about the manner in which Mohar Pal was stopped by all
the accused persons when he was riding his motorcycle and immediately
thereafter Rohtas (Accused No.1) and Surender Singh (Accused No.2)
inflicted knife blows on his stomach one after the other. The fact that
similar role has been ascribed to Roop Chand (Accused No.4) and Dev
Kumar (Accused No.6) but the High Court acquitted
them by giving
benefit of doubt cannot be the basis to undermine the quality of evidence
which has already come on record. We are not dilating on the
correctness of the view so taken by the High Court qua those accused
as neither the State nor the complainant has assailed the finding recorded
by the High Court in that regard. That does not mean that a wrong
relief given to co-accused should also be given to the appellants against
whom clinching evidence has come on record about the manner in
which the offence was committed by them.
ROHTAS & ANR. v. THE STATE OF HARYANA
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
878
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
17. Reverting to the exposition of this Court in State of U.P. vs.
Moti Ram & Ors.6, it turns on the facts of that case. That case was
an appeal against acquittal and the quality of evidence was not
reassuring and warranting a finding of guilt against the acquitted
accused. Even in the case of Balaka Singh & Ors. vs. The State of
Punjab7, this Court was dealing with evidence against the appellants
and four accused named along with the appellants therein, which was
so inextricably mixed up that it was not possible to separate one from
the other.
18. In the present case, however, the evidence of Bishan Singh
(PW-1) and Baljit Singh (PW-2), who are the eye witnesses, has
mentioned about the events as unfolded. First, all the accused persons
obstructed Mohar Pal who was riding a motorcycle. Immediately after
he was stopped, both the appellants inflicted knife blows on the stomach
of Mohar Pal one after the other. This role of the appellants is distinct.
Thereafter Mohar Pal attempted to flee away from the spot when he
was stopped by the other accused persons and two of them inflicted
knife blows one after the other. The events, therefore, can be
segregated.
19. So far as the second event is concerned, the Trial Court and
the High Court gave benefit of doubt to the concerned accused. In that
sense, the appellants are not concerned with that part of the event. As
aforementioned, even if we do not agree with the approach of
the High
Court in absolving Accused Nos.4 and 6, we refrain from dilating on
the said approach of the High Court as neither the State nor the
complainant has assailed the acquittal of those accused. In any case,
wrong benefit given to those accused cannot enure to the advantage
of the appellants against whom clear, truthful and unassailable evidence
is forthcoming. For, neither the presence of Bishan Singh (PW-1) and
Baljit Singh (PW-2) can be doubted nor their evidence can be discarded
on the specious ground that they are related to the deceased Mohar
Pal, and are therefore interested witnesses.
20. Indubitably, just because the witnesses are related cannot be
the basis to discard their evidence, if it is otherwise natural and truthful.
Their evidence has commended to the Trial Court as well as the High
Court as truthful and we see no reason to deviate from that concurrent
6 (1990) 4 SCC 389
7 (1975) 4 SCC 511
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
879
view taken by the Courts below. It is the duty of the Court to separate
the grain from the chaff and then to arrive at a finding of guilt of an
accused or otherwise, notwithstanding the fact that evidence is found
to be deficient qua another accused named in the same offence. The
maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has not received general
acceptance in India nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of
rule of law. This has been restated in Rizan & Anr. vs. State of
Chhattisgarh8. In paragraph 12 of the said decision, the Court
observed, thus :-
“12. Stress was laid by the accused-appellants on the non-
acceptance of evidence tendered by some witnesses to contend
about desirability to throw out the entire prosecution case. In
essence, prayer is to apply the principle of falsus in uno falsus
in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything). This plea is
clearly untenable. Even if a major portion of evidence is found
to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an
accused, notwithstanding acquittal of a number of other co-
accused persons his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty
of the court to separate the grain from the chaff. Where the chaff
can be separated from the grain, it would be open to the court
to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has
been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons.
Falsity of a particular material witness or material particular
would not ruin it
from the beginning to end. The maxim falsus
in uno falsus in omnibus has no application in India and the
witnesses cannot be branded as liars. The maxim falsus
in uno falsus in omnibus has not received general
acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status
of a rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it
amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be
disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The
doctrine merely involves the question of weight of
evidence which a court may apply in a given set of
circumstances, but it is not what may be called “a
mandatory rule of evidence”. (See Nisar Ali v. State of U.P.)
Merely because some of the accused persons have been
acquitted, though evidence against all of them, so far as
8 (2003) 2 SCC 661
ROHTAS & ANR. v. THE STATE OF HARYANA
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
880
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
direct testimony went, was the same does not lead as a
necessary corollary that those who have been convicted
must also be acquitted. It is always open to a court to
differentiate accused who had been acquitted from those who
were convicted. (See Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab.)
The doctrine is a dangerous one, specially in India for if a whole
body of the testimony were to be rejected, because a witness
was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be
feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a
deadstop. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a
story, however true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised
in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of
acceptance, and merely because in some respects the court
considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the
testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter
of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well. The
evidence has to be sifted with care. The aforesaid dictum is not
a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a
witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or
at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. (See
Sohrab v. State of M.P. and Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar.) An
attempt has to be made to, as noted above, in terms of the
felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff, truth from
falsehood. Where it is not
feasible to separate truth from
falsehood, because the grain and the chaff are inextricably mixed
up, and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has
to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by
the prosecution completely from the context and the background
against which they are made, the only available course to be
made is to discard the evidence in toto. (See Zwinglee Ariel v.
State of M.P. and Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab.) As
observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki normal
discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal
errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of
time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the
time of occurrence and those are always there, however honest
and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those
which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person.
Courts have to label the category into which a discrepancy may
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
881
be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the
credibility of a party’s case, material discrepancies do so. These
aspects were highlighted recently in Krishna Mochi v. State of
Bihar and Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa. Accusations
have been clearly established against the accused-appellants in
the case at hand. The courts below have categorically indicated
the distinguishing features in evidence so far as the acquitted and
convicted accused are concerned.”
(emphasis supplied)
21. In another decision of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh
vs. Ram Kumar & Ors.9, it is held that minor discrepancies in the
statement of witnesses of trivial nature cannot be a ground to reject
evidence as a whole. The Court relied upon the exposition of Brahm
Swaroop & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh10. In paragraph 32 of
the said decision, the Court observed, thus :-
“32. It is a settled legal proposition that while appreciating the
evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters,
which do not affect the core of the prosecution’s case, may not
prompt the court to reject the evidence in its entirety. “Irrelevant
details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a
witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions.”
Difference in some minor details, which does not otherwise affect
the core of the prosecution case, even if present, would not itself
prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and
discrepancies.
After exercising care and caution and sifting
through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration
and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as to whether
the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus,
an undue importance should not be attached to omissions,
contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of
the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness.
As the mental capabilities of a human being cannot be expected
to be attuned to absorb all the details, minor discrepancies are
bound to occur in the statements of witnesses. (See State of U.P.
v. M.K. Anthony, State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, State v.
Saravanan and Prithu v. State of H.P.)”
9 (2017) 14 SCC 614
10 (2011) 6 SCC 288
ROHTAS & ANR. v. THE STATE OF HARYANA
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
882
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
22. The so-called deficiencies pointed out by the appellants in
the investigation or the prosecution case, in our opinion, are insignificant
and trivial and cannot be the basis to reject the whole evidence of Bishan
Singh (PW-1) and Baljit Singh (PW-2) which is corroborated by the
other evidence in the form of medical reports and recovery of human
blood stained soil from the spot near the hospital where Mohar Pal was
assaulted by the accused. The fact that the blood group of the human
blood stained soil cannot be ascertained, can be no basis to discard that
piece of evidence. Even the recovery of weapon used by Rohtas
(Accused No.1) during the commission of the offence reinforces the
role and involvement of the appellants in the commission of the crime.
The quality substantive evidence on record clearly establishes the guilt
of the appellants.
23. In a recent decision in Dilawar Singh & Ors. vs. State of
Haryana11, the Court restated that while analysing the evidence of eye
witnesses, it must be borne in mind that there is bound to be variations
and difference in the behaviour of the witnesses or their reactions from
situation to situation and individual to individual. There cannot be
uniformity in the reaction of witnesses. The Court must not decipher
the evidence on unrealistic basis. There can be no hard and fast rule
about the uniformity in human reaction. The difference in the statements
of the prosecution
witnesses about the conditions of Mohar Pal when
he was admitted in the hospital, therefore, does not take the matter any
further especially when the medical reports clearly indicate that he was
admitted in the hospital in semi-conscious state and was declared dead
by the doctor only thereafter.
24. As regards, the delay in registration of FIR, that aspect has
also been considered by the Trial Court and the finding recorded by
the Trial Court rejecting that defence plea found favour with the High
Court. We see no reason to deviate from the conclusion so recorded
that there was no delay in registration of FIR in the facts of the present
case. The significance of registration of FIR without loss of time need
not be underscored. This Court in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. M.
Madhusudhan Rao12, while dealing with similar arguments, observed
in paragraph 30 as follows :-
11 (2015) 1 SCC 737
12 (2008) 15 SCC 582
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
883
“30. Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging
of the first information report has been highlighted. Delay in
lodging the first information report, more often than not, results
in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an
afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the
advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of a
coloured version, an exaggerated account of the incident or a
concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also
creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is
essential that the delay in lodging the report should be
satisfactorily explained.”
25. In the present case, there has been no delay as is evident
from the contemporaneous record. Mohar Pal was admitted in hospital
immediately after the incident and was examined by Dr. Ramesh.
Mohar Pal was declared dead at 11.00 p.m. The City Police Station
was informed by the doctor at 11.30 p.m. Thereafter, Bishan Singh
(PW-1) complained to ASI Gian Singh (PW-5) near hospital building
and finally the FIR was registered at 0015 hrs. on the night between
25th and 26th April, 1998. In Kishan Singh (Dead) Through LRs vs.
Gurpal Singh & Ors.13, This Court had observed as follows :-
“22. In cases where there is a delay in lodging an FIR, the court
has to look for a plausible explanation for such delay. In the
absence of such an explanation, the delay may be fatal. The
reason for quashing such proceedings may
not be merely that
the allegations were an afterthought or had given a coloured
version of events. In such cases the court should carefully
examine the facts before it for the reason that a frustrated litigant
who failed to succeed before the civil court may initiate criminal
proceedings just to harass the other side with mala fide intentions
or the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the other party.
Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give
vent to their frustrations by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of
the criminal court. The court proceedings ought not to be
permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and
persecution. In such a case, where an FIR is lodged clearly with
13 (2010) 8 SCC 775
ROHTAS & ANR. v. THE STATE OF HARYANA
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
884
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
a view to spite the other party because of a private and personal
grudge and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal
proceedings, the court may take a view that it amounts to an
abuse of the process of law in the facts and circumstances of
the case. (Vide Chandrapal Singh v. Maharaj Singh; State
of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal; G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.; and
Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P.)”
26. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in upholding the
view taken by the Trial Court that there was no delay in registration of
the FIR in the fact situation of the present case.
27. We are also in agreement with the view taken by the Trial
Court and affirmed by the High Court that the defence had taken self-
contradictory stand. First, it was asserted that Mohar Pal sustained
injuries in the first incident which had occurred at 6.30 p.m. on the same
evening. However, no evidence in support of that plea was forthcoming.
Then, the alternative plea taken by the defence was that Mohar Pal
was, in fact, injured at some other place near Anaj Mandi and was
brought in a three-wheeler to the hospital. Even this plea of the accused
has been held to be figment of imagination and without any evidence
in support thereof. On the other hand, the prosecution has produced
evidence in the form of human blood soiled mud from the spot near
the hospital where the incident in question had occurred as stated by
Bishan Singh
(PW-1) and Baljit Singh (PW-2).
28. Even the fact that the accused have been acquitted in the
cross-cases filed with regard to the first incident which took place at
6.30 p.m. on the same evening will not take the matter any further for
the appellants. That was an independent incident whereas the finding
of guilt recorded against the appellants is concerning the incident which
had taken place at 8.30 p.m. near the Government Hospital, Palwal as
proved by the prosecution witnesses. In fact, the incident at 8.30 p.m.
was the counter blast of the fight which had taken place between two
groups at 6.30 p.m. and the previous enmity between them. The fact
that there is no evidence about the previous enmity and that no evidence
is produced by the prosecution in that regard, in our view, cannot be
the basis to reverse the concurrent view taken by two Courts below -
recording finding of guilt against the appellants for commission of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
885
offence to assault Mohar Pal near the Government Hospital, Palwal at
around 8.30 p.m. on 25th April, 1998.
29. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, no interference is
warranted in this appeal and we are disposed to dismiss the same.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. The bail bonds of the appellants
stand cancelled. The appellants shall surrender within four weeks from
today failing which, the local police station must take necessary action
against the appellants in accordance with law.
Devika Gujral
Appeal dismissed.
ROHTAS & ANR. v. THE STATE OF HARYANA
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]