The Supreme Court while dealing with an appeal of a conviction upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the task of the court is to categorise the witnesses as wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, or falling into a middle category and the Court is tasked with separating the reliable elements from the unreliable aspects to discern the true nature of the incident.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The case originated from Sessions Trial No. 70 of 1984, wherein six accused individuals faced charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 147, 148, 302, 149, 307, and 341.
The prosecution's narrative, as gleaned from the evidence on record, unfolded during an incident involving a bullock cart carrying several individuals, including the appellant's son, Ashok. The cart was allegedly stopped by a group of individuals, leading to a confrontation. Subsequently, gunshots were fired, resulting in injuries to Ashok and another individual, Ramkali. The case was initially registered under Section 307 of the IPC but later converted to a Section 302 case following Ashok's demise.
Contentions of the Parties:
The contentions presented by the appellant's counsel primarily revolved around challenging the reliability of the evidence, emphasizing the inconsistencies in the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses, specifically Ramkali (PW.5) and Mulchand (PW.6). The defence argued that these witnesses, being the parents of the deceased, provided unreliable statements attributing the crime to the appellant. Furthermore, the defence disputed the motive attributed to the appellant, citing the remote nature of the alleged previous enmity as a basis for potential false implication.
Conversely, the State, represented by the Deputy Advocate General, asserted the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, highlighting the corroboration of their testimonies with medical evidence. The State contended that the trial court appropriately considered the evidence and found the appellant guilty based on the available material.
Observations by the Court:
The Court underscored the importance of categorizing witnesses as wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, or falling into a middle category. Referring to the landmark case of Vedivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, the Court acknowledged the inherent difficulty when dealing with witnesses who are neither entirely reliable nor entirely unreliable. In such cases, the Court is tasked with separating the reliable elements from the unreliable aspects to discern the true nature of the incident.
Upon scrutinizing the testimonies of PW.5 and PW.6, the Court found their statements to be inconsistent and lacking the necessary clarity to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. Notably, the Court pointed out that PW.5, in her testimony, did not initially mention the presence of the appellant at the scene of the incident. It was only through the cross-examination that this information emerged. Additionally, the injuries attributed to the appellant by the witnesses were distinct from those sustained by the deceased, Ashok.
The Court observed that the trial court had already disbelieved the testimonies of these witnesses concerning another accused, Uma Charan, which raised questions about their overall credibility. Given the double-edged nature of the motive attributed to the appellant based on previous enmity, the Court concluded that there existed a possibility of false implication.
The decision of the Court:
In light of these considerations, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the conviction of the appellant, Balaram. The Court held that the evidence provided by the witnesses fell into the category of wholly unreliable, rendering the conviction unsustainable.
Case Name: Balaram vs State Of Madhya Pradesh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justices B.R. Gavai, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha And Aravind Kumar
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2300 of 2009
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 860 SC
Advocates of the Appellant: Mr. R. Chandrachud, Adv. Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, AOR Mr. Nabab Singh, Adv. Mr. Dhuli Venkata Krishna, Adv. Ms. Geetanjali Das Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Dharmendar Singh, Adv.
Advocates of the Respondent: Mr. V.V.V. Pattabhiram, D.A.G. Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, AOR Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Adv. Mr. Pawan, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Verma, Adv.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
