Witnesses can be the culprits and this aspect mustn’t be overlooked: Supreme Court of India

Challenging their conviction for the offence punishable Code 1860 and the sentence of life the Ist Additional Sessions Judge Sagar M.P. and confirmed Jabalpur Accused Nos.2 and 3 have come up with these 3. We have heard Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad and Mr. Amit Arjariya learned counsel appearing for the the appellant in one of these appeals is the sister of Shri Madhav who is the appellant in the other appeal. Shri Raju Yadav who was The case of the prosecution was that on the night of 13.05.2008 at about 22.30 hrs. all the three accused in furtherance of the common intention of all attacked one resulting in his death and that thereafter with the intention victim to the Government Hospital and sent a false and Kailash. While all the three accused were charged for witness account of PWs 4 5 6 7 and 9 the medical knife and lathis from the houses of the accused and the 7. Out of the witnesses on whose ocular testimony heavy persons whom A­2 had named as the accused in the first PWs 4 and 5 were related to PWs 6 and 7. Actually the which was contrary to their statement to the Police. The related to the presence of A­1 and A­2 at the spot but footing without any rhyme or reason as though PWs 4 and 5 Court declared them as hostile at the request of the a person by name Ruia Yadav. As stated in the previous by one Smt. Radha Rani mother of the deceased examined on the side of the defence as DW­1. But that portion of the his brother Raju nearly two hours before the time of occurrence of the crime. Interestingly the argument between the deceased and A­1 was purportedly in relation to an The Sessions Court considered Sapna Yadav examined as PW­9 who was aged 16 years at the time of occurrence as after 21 days of the date of occurrence the Sessions Court with Section 34 IPC. However A­2 was acquitted of the charges under Sections 211 and 194 IPC. All of them were sentenced to life imprisonment and also imposed a fine of 10. A­1 and A­2 being husband and wife respectively 2009 on the file of the High Court challenging their sentence and dismissed the appeals. Aggrieved by the with the above criminal appeals. However A­1 has been the testimonies of PWs 9 and 14 and the glaring for the appellants argued that the conviction was based 12. However placing reliance upon the seizure of the knife and lathis allegedly used for the commission of the offence representing the State that the prosecution had established Sessions Court and the High Court were justified in relying from the date of occurrence of the crime namely 13.05.2008 would show that the investigation in this case instead of the truth. This can be best appreciated by narrating the a) Admittedly an information was received by one Shri Moti Nagar Police Station Sagar District at about 23.00 hrs. on 13.05.2008 from the Government auto rickshaw to the hospital. This Assistant Sub Inspector was examined as PW­12. According to b) Admittedly the investigation was taken over by the investigation in the morning of 14.05.2008 Therefore in the normal course one would have the reverse gear by making the informant namely Sahodra Bai and her husband and brother as as witnesses. One would have expected an the morning of 14.05.2008 in relation to a FIR registered at 23.50 hours the previous night to record the statements of the informant visit the place of commission of the crime secure the But in this case the IO right from the beginning c) During cross­examination PW­14 admitted that the investigation was taken up by him on 14.05.2008 against Ruia and Kailash. This is report to the effect that there were several a report the IO concluded that these abrasions After obtaining the medical report about the their arrest. In other words within three days of the commission of the crime persons named as accused in the FIR were made witnesses for the prosecution and the informant her husband and the three accused that the statement of PW­9 the It is quite strange and completely unfathomable as to how where why and at what point of time the investigation and proceeded towards the very informant and her family accused and the actual accused were made witnesses. This stands corroborated by the admission made by PW­14 whether the accused named in the FIR namely Ruia and Ruia and Kailash Yadav in the commission of the crime remains unexplained. We are conscious of the fact that at times persons who commit a crime themselves make lodge first against those named as accused in the FIR and thereafter the needle of suspicion may turn against the 18. A useful reference can be made in this regard to the persons who allegedly sneaked into the bedroom of her investigation into the FIR registered on the basis of the mother­in­law’s complaint the Police found that the murder informant and her other daughters­in­law. Therefore the Police sent a report to the Court to the effect that the and others. The original informant filed a protest petition a revision and the CJM was directed to conduct an inquiry charge­sheet against the original informant was that once the proceedings initiated contention this Court opined “Of course the legal position is that there cannot be two FIRs against the same accused in respect of the same episode they would normally take the 19. Therefore it happens at times that the real culprit lodges FIR that the case may take a U­turn. When it does the informant may also have to face additional charges for the IPC. This is exactly the reason why in this case the prosecution charged A­2 for the offences punishable under 20. As stated earlier when a question was put to him as to original accused were ever taken into custody the IOthat in ii) that in his presence no weapons were seized from the in his presence. Yet the High Court gave credence to the 24. The fact that right from the beginning the IO proceeded to favour those two persons originally named as accused in the statements of several witnesses including Kailash and “From place of incidence blood stained soil and common soil was collected and was sealed in different different packets was seized in presence of witnesses and seizure Memo is that date only witnesses Rahul Yadav Rajesh Yadav Kailash Yadav Ruia @ Bhagirath Yadav Baby @ Leelabai Gandharv Patel Raghuvir Thakur Brijesh Rawat Om Prakash Pathak Gorelal Kurmi Mahesh Kurmi statement was obtained as told by them and nothing was to take up the cause of Ruia and go to the extent of the Trial Court has believed this story on the basis of the 26. Coming to the testimony of PW­9 projected as the star occurrence of the crime is unbelievable. In any case if her has categorically admitted that Ruia and Kailash were Ruia and Kailash. These admissions on the part of PW­9 hostile there was also one more thing. There is nothing on in those weapons matched with the blood of the deceased accused merely because as per Exhibit P­25the knife and lathis said to have been seized by the police contained stains of human blood. The prosecution has not views on this aspect. In Raghav Prapanna Tripathi vs. The by a majority held that “…that it would be far­fetched to conclude from the mere presence of blood­stained earth that of Orissa3 this Court acquitted the appellant on the ground that though the Serologist report found the shirt and dhoti with the blood of the deceased. In Surinder Singh vs. State for the commission of the offence were established to be Raghunath Ramkishan & Ors. vs. State of Haryana 5 this Court held that the blood stain though of a human blood group of the deceased. In Sattatiya vs State of of the crime substantially dented on account of the fact that the blood stains though found to be of human source could In contrast this Court held in State of Rajasthan vs too insufficient or because of hematological changes and plasmatic coagulation. After referring to the Constitution Bench decision in Raghav Prapanna Tripathi this Court held in Teja Ram that it is not as though the stand relegated to disutility in all cases where there was in Teja Ram that “…the effort of the Criminal Court 30. The decision Teja Ram was followed in Gura Singh vs. State of Rajasthan8 and in Prabhu Dayal vs In R. Shaji vs. State of Kerala10 this Court took note Prapanna Tripathi Teja Ram Gura Singh supra) John Pandian vs. State12 and Sunil Clifford once the recovery is made in pursuance of a disclosure statement made by the accused the matching or non­ 32. Therefore as pointed out by this Court in Balwan Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh14 there cannot be any fixed that the blood groups match. But the judicial conscience of the Court should be satisfied both about the recovery and In the case on hand even PW­1 who allegedly witnessed the culprits named in the first FIR on account of political pressure as admitted by PW­14 and corroborated by PW­9 whom the prosecution considered to be a star witness Unfortunately both the Sessions Court and the High Court accused were represented by amicus curiae either due to the appearance of the counsel engaged by them at the time of burden of the court is very heavy and unfortunately the Sessions court and the High court did not discharge this escape. Both the Sessions Court as well as the High Court the normal human conduct. It is unbelievable that A­1 A­2 as the accused. It is equally unbelievable that one of the persons who killed the victim in the presence of witnesses either to flee the place of occurrence or to go to the police 36. Therefore we are of the considered view that the appeals deserve to be allowed. But before we do that we must take Shri Shreeyash U. Lalit learned counsel for the State submitted that A­1’s case stands on a completely different appeal by him he cannot be granted any relief we do not of individual overt acts on the part of A­2 and A­3 to conclude that they are entitled to acquittal. This is a case where we have disbelieved in entirety the story of the prosecution. Therefore to deny the 37. Therefore the appeals filed by the appellants are allowed and the conviction handed over by the Sessions Court and including A­1 are set aside. All the three accused shall be released forthwith unless they are in custody in relation to

Summary: There cannot be a fixed formula that the prosecution has to prove or need not prove that the blood group matches. However, the judicial conscience of the Court should be satisfied both about the recovery and about the origin of the human blood. once the recovery is made in pursuance of a disclosure statement made by the accused, the matching or non-matching of blood groups loses significance. This was held by Hon’ble Justice V. Subramaniam in the case of Madhav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [Criminal Appeal No. 852 of 2021] on the 18th of August, 2021 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court at New Delhi. The brief facts of the case are, on the night of 13.05.2008, at about 22.30 hrs., all the three accused, in furtherance of the common intention of all, attacked one Pappu @ Nand Kishore with a knife and lathis resulting in his death and that, thereafter, with the intention of screening the offenders from legal punishment, Appellant 2 took the victim to the Government Hospital and sent a false information to the Police as though the murderous assault on the victim was committed by two other persons by name Ruia and Kailash. While all the three accused were charged for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, Appellant 2 was charged additionally for the offences punishable under Sections 211 and 194 IPC. The prosecution mainly relied upon (i) the purported eye­ witness account of PWs 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9, (ii) the medical evidence regarding the cause of death; and (iii) the recovery of the weapons used for the commission of the offence namely, knife and lathis, from the houses of the accused and the report of the Forensic Sciences Laboratory. The trial court and the high court convicted them for the above-mentioned offences. Challenging their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the sentence of life imprisonment, the present appeal has been filed. The counsel for the appellants argued that the conviction was based entirely upon surmises and that such a conviction is wholly unsustainable in law since the statements of the witnesses were contradictory and there was inconsistency between their testimonies. However, placing reliance upon the seizure of the knife and lathis allegedly used for the commission of the offence, from the houses of the accused under seizure memos and the report received from FSL, it was argued by the learned counsel representing the State that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that the Sessions Court and the High Court were justified in relying upon the evidence of PW­9 and others. The learned judge heard the submissions of both the parties and observed that IO did not even suspect the role of Ruia and Kailash Yadav in the commission of the crime which remains unexplained. It happens at times that the real culprit lodges the first information against known or unknown persons, to misdirect the investigation of an offence. But, even in such a case, it is only during the course of investigation into the first FIR that the case may take a U­turn. It was also observed that There is nothing on record to show that the blood stains said to have been present in those weapons, matched with the blood of the deceased. Unfortunately, the High Court proceeded on a wrong premise that there was scientific evidence to point to the guilt of the accused, merely because as per Exhibit P­25 (FSL Report), the knife and lathis said to have been seized by the police, contained stains of human blood. The prosecution has not established either through the report of FSL or otherwise, that the blood stains contained in the knife and lathis were that of the deceased.