http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: STATE OF U.P.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ANIL SINGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT26/08/1988

BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) OZA, G.L. (J)

CITATION:  1988 AIR 1998            1988 SCR  Supl. (2) 611  1988 SCC  Supl.  686     JT 1988 (3)   491  1988 SCALE  (2)436  CITATOR INFO :  R          1988 SC2013  (15)

ACT:     Constitutiion of India, 1950: Article 136-Under  article 136  the  scope  of appeal very limited-Even  if  two  views reasonably  possible court will not interfere with order  of acquittal-Court  will also not hesitate to interfere if  the acquittal is perverse.

HEADNOTE:     The  respondent Anil Singh was tried for the  murder  of Keshav Kumar, his erstwhile friend and classmate. The  Trial Court   convicted   the  accused  and   sentenced   him   to imprisonment   for  life.  The  High  Court   doubting   the credibility of the eye-witnesses, discarded the  prosecution case and acquitted the respondent.     Allowing the appeals, it was,     HELD: (1) The scope of appeals under Article 136 of  the Constitution  is undisputedly very limited. This Court  does not  exercise  its overriding powers under  Article  136  to reweigh  the  evidence.  Even if two  views  are  reasonably possible,  one  indicating conviction and  other  acquittal, this  Court will not interfere with the order of  acquittal. But  the  Court  will  not  hesitate  to  interfere  if  the acquittal is perverse in the sense that no reasonable person would  have come to that conclusion, or if the acquittal  is manifestly illegal or grossly unjust. [6l6A]     State  of U.P. v. Yushoda Nandan Gupta, AlR 1974 SC  753 and  State  of  A. P. v. R. Anjaneyulu, AIR  1982  SC  1598, referred to.     (2)  The public are generally reluctant to come  forward to depose before the Court. It is, therefore, not correct to reject  the prosecution version only on the ground that  all witnesses  to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor  it is  proper to reject the case for want of  corroboration  by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable. [6l7B-D]     (3)  It  is welt to remember that there  is  a  tendency amongst  witnesses in our country to back up a good case  by false  or  exaggerated  version. The Court  should  made  an effort  to disengage the truth from  falsehood and  to  sift

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

                                                 PG NO 611                                                   PG NO 612 the grain from the chaff rather than  taking an easy  course of holding the evidence discrepant and discarding the  whole case as untrue. [617C-D; 617F]     Bankim Chander v. Matangini, 24 C.W.N. 626 PC and  Abdul Gani  v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC  31,  referred to.     (4)  Invariably  the  witnesses add  embroidery  to  the prosecution   story,   perhaps  for  the   fear   of   being disbelieved.  But  that  is  no ground  to  throw  the  case overboard, if there is a ring of truth in the main. [6l7G]     It  is the duty of the Court to cull out the nuggets  of truth  from the evidence unless there is reason  to  believe that  the  inconsistencies or falsehood are  so  glaring  as utterly  to  destroy  confidence in  the  witnesses.  It  is necessary  to remember that a Judge does not preside over  a criminal  trial  merely  to  see that  no  innocent  man  is punished.  A  Judge also presides to see that a  guilty  man does not escape. One is as important as the other. Both  are public duties which the Judge has to perform. [6l7G-H; 618A]     (6)  The  Court gave its anxious  consideration  to  all material facts and circumstances of the case and came to the conclusion that the decision of the High Court could not  be supported. [622C]

JUDGMENT:     CRIMINAL  APPELLATE  JURlSDICTlON: Criminal  Appeal  No. 671-672 of 1980.     From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  17.4.1980  of  the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2340 of 1978.     A.N.  Mulla, Yogeswar Prasad, Mrs. Sarla  Chand,  Girish Chand, Ms. Rachna Joshi and D. Bhandari Advocate (N.P.)  for the Appellant.     Frank Anthony. J.K. Das, J.R. Das and S.K. Patri for the Respondent .     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     JAGANNATHA  SHETTY,  J.  The  State  of  U.P.   and  the informant  have preferred these appeals with special  leave, challenging the order of acquittal recorded by the Allahabad High Court in Criminal  Appeal No. 2340 of 1978. Anil Singh, the  common  respondent  in the appeals was  tried  for  the                                                   PG NO 613 murder of Keshav Kumar (‘K-K’) by the Court of Session (Non- Metropolitan  area), Kanpur. He was convicted and  sentenced to imprisonment for life. But on appeal, he was acquitted by the High Court.     The prosecution story of the occurrence may be stated at some length.     The respondent-accused and KK were almost of equal  age. They are friends as well as class mates. They were also  co- accused  in  some minor criminal cases. The accused  was  of violent   temperament.  He  used  to  indulge  in   criminal activities.   His   father   sent  him   to   his   maternal grandfather’s house at Faizabad for being better taken  care of.  But  he  used  to visit often  his  native  place  i.e. Pukhrayan,  where  KK was residing. The accused was  in  the habit  of  demanding money from KK. At the  time  of  Diwali festival  of  the year -i977, the accused asked  KK  to  pay Rs.2,500.  He wanted to purchase a revolver. It  is  alleged that  he even threatened KK that he would be killed  if  the amount was not paid by November 14, 1977. November 14, is  a rejoicing day for children. It is a birth day anniversary of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

Pt.  Jawahar Lal Nehru who was the first Prime  Minister  of this  Country. The children  all over called him  and  still remember him as "Cha Cha Nehru". Every year his birth day is celebrated as "Children Day" throughout the country. On that 14  November 1977, local Jaycees Club arranged Bal-mela  and cultural  programme.  It was arranged in the  Normal  School compound  ‘with sweet-meet and chat-shops. Bal-Mela went  on till 7 p.m. The cultural programme was to commence at 8 p.m. In between KK was murdered.     It  is  said that the accused and KK came  to  Bal-Mela. From there the accused went along with KK to a nearby place, that  is  the  varandah  of  Dr.  Diwedi’s  shop.  There  he assaulted  KK  with knife. Prahlad Kumar who is  the  eldest brother  of KK and some others rushed to the spot.  But  the accused  could  not be caught. Nor KK could  be  saved.  The accused was chased but he ran away by brandishing his knife. The  fatally  injured KK was seen walking a  few  steps  and falling  down  in  a ‘Nali’. Prahlad Kumar  lifted  him  and carried  up to some distance for medical attention.  But  on the way near Khazanchi hotel,  KK succumbed to in juries.     Prahlad  Kumar carried the dead body of his  brother  to his  house. So many people followed him. The  Sub-Divisional Magistrate  and Tehsildar who were the guests of  honour  at the  function also went to his house. Ramesh Chander Dube  a                                                   PG NO 614 social worker and  politician was  very much there.  Prahlad Kumar  wrote a report giving fairly all particulars  of  the occurrence.  He  took a scooter and went to  Police  Station Bhoginpur  which  is  just two miles away  from  his  house. Ramesh Chander Dube accompanied him. They lodged the  report at 9.15 p.m. at the Police Station.     Kaushal  Chand Tripathi Sub-Inspector was then  incharge of  the Police Station. He was present when the  report  was lodged.  He got the case registered. He immediately went  to the  scene of occurrence. He also visited the house  of  the deceased.  He  found  the dead body lying  on  a  bench.  He conducted the inquest proceedings. Ex. Ka. 1 is the  inquest report. He sent the dead body with Constables Aley Hasan and Trijugi  Narain  for  post-mortem.  Thereafter  he  recorded statements  of  persons.  He  examined  witnesses  including Chottey  Lal  (PW  2). In the  course  of  interrogation  of persons,  he  came  across a boy called Raju.  He  took  his statement  who has been later examined as PW 3 in the  case. On  the  following morning at 5.45 a.m.,  the  Investigating Officer again went to the scene of occurrence. He prepared a sketch  map  Ex.  ka.  13. He  found  blood  stains  on  the furniture lying in the varandah of Dr. Diwedi’s shop. He got removed  two pieces of a bench (Ex. 3 & 4) and one piece  of table (Ex. 5) which were stained with blood. A memo Ex.  Ka. 15 was prepared in respect thereof. Similarly, he  collected blood stained and unstained earth from the Nali (Ex. 6 & 7). A memo Ex. Ka. 16 was also prepared in evidence thereof.  He also collected blood stained earth from the Patti under  the Memo Ex. Ka. 14.     The Investigating Officer then directed his officers  to search and arrest the accused. But accused was not traceable in  the town. The proceedings were initiated under s.  82/83 Criminal  Procedure Code. On 17 November 1977,  he  obtained warrant  of  arrest (Ex. Ka. 17).  The  Sub-Inspector  Sital Prasad  was deputed to execute the warrant. On  21  November 1977  proclamation and warrant of attachment (Ex. Ka.  18  & Ka. 19) were obtained and executed properly. The property of accused  was  attached under Memo Ex. Ka. 20.  It  was  only thereafter  the  accused  appeared  in  the  Police  Station Kotwali. On 26 November 1977 he was arrested at Kotwali.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

   Before  the trial court, the prosecution in  support  of the  case examined Prahlad Kumar (PW 1), Chhotey Lal (PW  2) and Raju (PW 3) as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Rest  of the  evidence of prosecution is more or less formal. On  the other side, Ramesh Chander Dube (DW 1), Karan Singh (DW  2),                                                   PG NO 615 Balak  Das  (DW 3) and Shri Prasad (DW 4) were  examined  as defence witnesses.     The  trial Court upon consideration of all the  material on record accepted the case made out by the prosecution. The trial  Court convicted the accused for the murder of KK  and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.     The High Court of Allahabad set aside the conviction and sentence,  and acquitted the accused. The High  Court  first surveyed  some  broad aspects of the case  and  reached  the conclusion that the relations between the family of  accused and  KK  were strained. The High Court then  considered  the evidence of eye-witnesses and disbelieved them by  attaching one  or the other doubt against their  credibility.  Prahlad Kumar  (PW  1) was disbelieved on the grounds:  He  did  not disclose the name of person who first informed him about the assault  on KK. He did not disclose the name of  accused  to the  Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Tehsildar when they  came to his house. He did not ask them to call the Police and get the accused arrested. The High Court observed:     "Sub-Divisional Magistrate is incharge of a Sub-Division and  has  to maintain law and order. The  Police  ordinarily acts  under  his  directions.  In  these  circumstances  had Prahlad  Kumar  seen  the occurrence and  the  assailant  he should  have  immediately  made  a  complaint  to  the  Sub- Divisional Magistrate who came up soon after the occurrence. The  silence  of Prahlad Kumar in this  respect  is  clearly indicative of the fact that he had neither seen any part  of the occurrence nor he had seen the assailant.     Chhotey  Lal  (PW  2)  was  characterised  as  a  chance witness. His presence at the place of occurrence was doubted with the following observations:     "Another  fact which is conspicuous in his statement  is that he and his 2 companions left the market at the time  of sun  set  for their village. In the middle of  November  the time  of setting in of the sun is about 5.30 p.m.  There  is dusk for about 45 minutes. Thus it appears that these  three persons  left  the market if not at about  5.30  p.m.,  then alteast at about 5. 15 p.m. They could easily cover distance of  2 miles in an hour’s time. Therefore, by 7.15 p.m.  they could   have   easily  reached  their   village.   In   this circumstance it does not stand to reason that they left  the                                                   PG NO 616 market  at 7.30 or 7.45 p.m. From this aspect of the  matter the  version given by Chhotey Lal about his presence at  the time of occurrence is not fee from doubt."     The  testimony  of Raju (PW 3) was rejected  by  stating that  he was a child witness. that he did not figure in  the FIR as an eye-witness, and his explanation for his  presence at the spot was not reasonable. The High Court said:     "He  has stated that his elder brother had told  him  to come up early and that on account of fear of being beaten by his brother he left the chabutara and proceeded towards  his house.  It  will be noticed that he had left the  Mela  area with  his Thela at about 7.30 p.m. It is thereafter that  he again  returned  to the Mela area he took 10-15  minutes  in shifting  the chairs from the place of his shop to the  dais of  the drama. It is evident that just 15 minutes  later  he left  the Mela area. Assuming for a moment that his  brother had  told  him to come early it did not mean that  he  would

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

return to the house within less than half an hour. Moreover, he  did not tell the Investigating Officer that he left  the Mela  so  soon on account of fear of his  brother.  We  are, therefore,  of  the  opinion  that  Raju  has  not  given  a reasonable  explanation of his leaving the Mela area  within about 15 minutes of his keeping the chairs near the place of drama.  Therefore,  his  presence  at the  time  of  assault cannot be believed."     With  these  and  other  conclusions,  the  High   Court discarded the prosecution case.     Hence these appeals.     The   scope  of  appeals  under  Article  136   of   the Constitution  is undisputedly very much limited. This  Court does  not exercise its over-riding powers under Article  136 to  reweigh  the evidence. The Court does  not  disturb  the concurrent   finding   of   facts   reached   upon    proper appreciation. Even if two views are reasonably possible, one indicating  conviction and other acquittal, this Court  will not interfere with the order of acquittal, [See:(i) State of U.P. v. Yashoda Nandan Gupta, AIR 1974 SC 753 and (ii) State of  A.P. v. P. Anjaneyulu, AIR 1982 SC 1598] But this  Court will not hesitate to interfere if the acquittal is  perverse                                                   PG NO 617 in  the sense that no reasonable person would have  come  to that  conclusion, or if the acquittal is manifestly  illegal or grossly unjust.     On late this Court has been receiving a large number  of appeals  against  acquittals and in the  great  majority  of cases,  the prosecution version is rejected either for  want of  corroboration  by  independent witnesses,  or  for  some falsehood  stated or embroidery added by witnesses. In  some cases,  the  entire  prosecution case  is  doubted  for  not examining all witnesses to the occurrence. We have  recently pointed  out the indifferent attitude of the public  in  the investigation of crimes. The public are generally  reluctant to  come  forward  to  depose  before  the  Court.  It   is, therefore,  not  correct to reject the  prosecution  version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not  been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case  for want  of corroboration by independent witnesses if the  case made  out is otherwise true and acceptable. With  regard  to falsehood stated or embellishments added by the  prosecution witnesses,  it is well to remember that there is a  tendency amongst  witnesses in our country to back up a good case  by false  or  exaggerated  version. The Privy  Council  had  an occasion to observe this. In Bankim Chander v. Matangini, 24 C.W.N. 626 PC, the  Privy Council had this to say (at 628):     "That in Indian litigation it is not safe to assume that a  case must be false if some of the evidence in support  of it appears to be doubtful or is clearly unture, since  there is, on some occasions, a tendency amongst litigants to  back up  a good case by false or exaggerated evidence."     In  Abdul Gani v. State of Madya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC  31 Mahajan, J., speaking for this Court deprecated the tendency of  courts  to take an easy course of holding  the  evidence discrepant  and  discarding the whole case  as  untrue.  The learned  Judge said that the Court should make an effort  to disengage  the  truth from falsehood and to sift  the  grain from the chaff.     It is also our experience that invariably the  witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being  disbelieved. But that is no ground to throw the  case overboard, if true, in the main. If there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be rejected. It is the duty of  the  Court  to cull out the nuggets of  truth  from  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

evidence  unless  there  is  reason  to  believe  that   the inconsistencies  or falsehood are so glaring as  utterly  to destroy  confidence  in the witnesses. It  is  necessary  to                                                   PG NO 618 remember that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important  as  the other. Both are public duties  which  the Judge has to perform.     In the instant case, the trial judge and the High  Court have accepted the fact that the report to Police was  lodged by  Prahlad  Kumar (PW 1) at 9.15 p.m. That means  that  the report  disclosing the name of accused did reach the  Police Station  immediately  after the murder. This is  a  positive finding  in favour of prosecution. The report  contains  all particulars  including  the  motive for the  crime  and  the manner  in which it was committed. It gives us the names  of eye-witnesses  as well. It also gives a clear picture as  to what  KK did after the attack and how the accused made  good his escape.     It  was  argued by Shri Frank  Anthony,  learned  senior counsel for the accused that it would be impossible for  any person  to prepare such an exhaustive report and  lodge  the same  before  the  Police  so  soon  after  the  occurrence. According  to  counsel, the report must have  been  prepared after the inquest and non-mentioning of the time of despatch of FIR to the Court would lend support to his submission. We carefully examined the material on record. We are unable  to accept  the  submission  of learned counsel.  In  the  first place,  PW  1 was not specifically cross  examined  on  this matter.  The  Court  cannot  therefore,  presume   something adverse to the witness unless his attention  is specifically drawn  to.  Secondly,  the  records  contain   unimpeachable evidence  to  the contrary. Apart from the  records  of  the Police  Station,  the  Panchayatnama (Ex. Ka.  7)  to  which Ramesh  Chandra  Duty(DW  1)  has  admittedly  appended  his signature  shows  that the reporting time of the  crime  was 9.15  p.m. DW 1 accompanied Prahlad Kumar to Police  Station to lodge the report though he later defected to the defence. He is a political figure and social worker. Highly qualified too.  He  would  not have signed the  Panchayatnama  if  the statement therein were not true and correct.     Equally  there cannot be any dispute about the place  of commission  of  crime.  It was committed  in  front  of  Dr. Diwedi’s shop. Portions of the blood stained furniture  have been collected from the place (Ex. Ka. 15 & 14). It has been proved by the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW  7). His evidence remains unchallenged.     If  we critically examine the evidence of PW 1 there  is nothing to                                                   PG NO 619 doubt  the correctness of the version given by him.  He  was one of the persons who organised the programme. His presence at  the place was therefore quite natural. He has  testified to  the  presence of KK going with the accused at  the  Bal- Mela. It is an evidence of the last seen together. It is  an important  piece of evidence. PW 1 could not be  disbelieved on the gound that he did not mention the name of accused  to Sub-Divisional  Magistrate and Tehsildar. Nor  his  evidence could  be  doubted on the ground that he did  not  seek  the assistance  of the said officers to secure the police  help. It  is  unthinkable that the Sub-Divisional  Magistrate  and Tehsildar  were not kept informed about the  assailant.  The crime  was  committed at a public place crowed  by  persons. They had assembled there to witness the cultural  programme.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

The   Sub-Divisional  Magistrate  cancelled   the   cultural programme  because  of commission of the crime.  The  people would have naturally asked why the programme was  cancelled? Who murdered whom and why? It is a natural human tendency in such  situations.  The news of the murder must  have  spread like  a wild fire. The name of accused must have been  known to everybody gathered there. It is unfortunate that the High Court overlooked these  circumstances.     The other reason given by the High Court to discard  the evidence  of  PW 1 is that he did not disclose the  name  of person who first informed him about the murderous attack  on KK.  This reasoning of the High Court apparently  reveals  a lack  of  experience  of man and matters. There  was  a  big gathering  at  the Normal School Compound. The  people  were waiting to see the cultural programme. It was to commence at 8.00  PM. The time was hearing. PW 1 was at the stage as  be was  one  of the organisers. He was then informed  that  his brother  KK  was being assaulted by the accused.  The  first impulse  of  PW  1 must have been to rush to  the  scene  of occurrence  and  not  to remember the name  or  identity  of person who informed him. The place of occurrence was  hardly about 25 paces from the stage set for cultural programme. PW 1 must have rushed to the place in a minute. There must have been  some altercation between the accused and KK. It  could have  taken  some time. PW 1 must have reached  within  that time. The medical evidence supports this version. There  are as many as eight incised wounds on KK. The doctor has stated that KK could have survived 10-15 minutes after the  assault and moved 15-2() paces. PW I has stated that KK went towards Nali  and fell down. He along with Dhruv lifted KK from  the Nali  and carried him towards the clinic of Dr.Mishra.  Even the  defence witness Ramesh Chander has admitted that PW  1, Dhruv and others were present at the Nali where KK was lying injured.  It is, therefore, quite unreasonable to hold  that PW 1 could  not have seen the assault on KK.                                                   PG NO 620     It was, however, urged that there was no light in  front of the shop of Dr. Diwedi and PW 1 or other witnesses  could not  have identified the accused. Shiv Prasad Mishra (DW  4) has been produced  to testify that the street mercury  light was  not burning on that day. We may accept the evidence  of DW  4,  but  we cannot accept that  there  was  no  lighting arrangement  at  the  public  function.  The  Sub-Divisional Magistrate  and Tehsildar were present at the function.  Bal Mela commencing at 7.00 PM and cultural programme at 8.00 PM could  not  have been arranged in  darkness.  Theprosecution witnesss   have  stated   that  apart  from   the   lighting arrangement at the function, there was an electric light  in front  of the shop of Dr. Diwedi. It is also on record  that there  was  another light near the  Khazanchi  hotel.  Quite natural  the area must have been well-lit for the  function. That apart, the accused  was not a stranger to the place. He was  at  any rate familiar to PW 1’and his  family  members. There was, therefore, no scope for any mistaken identity  of the accused.     The reason given by the High Court for disbelieving  the evidence of Chhotey Lal PW 2 is fanciful. PW 2 is a resident of the village  Astiya. The village is at a distance of  two miles from Pukhrayan town. It will be seen from his evidence that   he  along  with  Baijnath  and   Manuwa   maharaj-all residents of the same village had gone to the town for their requirements.  PW  2  wanted iron  nails,  Manuwa   required vegetables  and  Baijnath had to purchase iron  rods.  After purchasing the respective goods, they proceeded toward their village.  When they reached the tehsil, they came across  3-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

4-5 boys who told  them that there was Bal Mela and cultural programme  in the Normal School. It was natural for them  to stay  on to see the cultural programme. They came  to  their grain  dealer.  They kept their articles at  his  place  and after  some time they started towards the Normal  School  at about  7.30  or  7.45 PM. When  they  were  approaching  the Khazanchi   hotel, they saw the accused assaulting  KK.  The evidence  of  PW  2  receives corroboration from  PW  1.  He figures  as an eye-witness in the  FIR. He  cannot,therefore be categoried as a chance witness.     The accused tried to give negative evidence to show that the   market  in Pukhrayan town to every Monday  was  closed and, therefore, the presence of PW 2 was not probable. PW  2 has admitted that the market used to remain ’closed on every Monday, but the general  merchandise and hardware shops  are not closed. In our opinion, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of PW 1.     The  third  eye-witness in this case is Raju  PW  3.  It seems  to  us  that he is an important witness. He  had  the                                                   PG NO 621 courage  to come forward to depose in favour of  prosecution in  spite  of his father going as a  defence   witness.  The trial court upon preliminary examination has opined that  he is  an intelligent boy and able to give rational answers  to questions  put to him. He was then a student of class IV  in the Normal School. His father opened a chat-shop at the  Bal Mela.  PW  3 was in that shop. There is no  disput  on  this fact.  According  to  him, after Bal Mela  he  arranged  the chairs  of his shop in front of the stage set  for  cultural programme.  He  met  some  of his friends  and  sat  at  the chabutara  by  the side of the stage. While leaving  to  his house,  he  saw a crowd by the side of Khazanchi  hotel  and stopped  there to find out what was happening. It  is  quite natural for boys to peep into the crowd. He has deposed that he saw the accused hitting KK with knife, but out of fear he ran from that place. His house is situated at a distance  of about 100 yards from the Mela ground. To cover that distance one  cannot take much time. Nor it is necessary to give  any sufficient  cause for his presence at the place. One  should bring to bear the knowledge and experience of life. Since he was  a  student of the Normal School, his  presence  at  the place was natural. His name might not have been mentioned in the  FIR,  but that is understandable. PW 1 might  not  have remembered him or noticed him. He was in a hurry to rush  to the spot to save his brother.     The  Investigation  Officer  has deposed  that  when  he started  interogating witnesses at the spot, he came  across Raju  who said that he had seen the incident. His  statement was immediately recorded. In the Court, Raju has been  cross examined   at the great length. But nothing substantial  has been elicited to shake his credibility. What is  significant to   note in this context is the attempt of th father  (DW3) to  destroy  the  credibility of the son. His  father  as  a defence  witness  has stated that after the  Mela  they  had returned  to house at about 6.30PM and thereafter  they  did not go out of the house for the Whole night. The trial court after  carefully  examining the testimony of DW  3  observed that  he  is  absolutely unreliable. It has  held  that  the testimony of DW 3 that he alongwith his son remained in  the house  after 6.30 PM and slept at about 8.30 PM is  unworthy of  belief  since  their  house is  admittedly  at  a  close distance  from the Normal School Compound. This  observation of the trial court is not unjustified.     The  post  crime conduct of the accused cannot  also  be lost  sight of. The plea of alibi has not been  pursued.  It

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

has  been proved that the accused was not available  in  the town  after the occurrence till 34 November 1977. It  is  on record   that  the  accused  could  not  be   traced     and                                                   PG NO 622 proceedings under sec. 82/83 Cr. Penal Code were  initiated. The  warrant of arrest issued against the  accused  returned unserved. There-after proclamation was made and his property was  attached. That was on 23 November 1977. He appeared  on the  next day in the Police Station Kotwali. That  has  been proved  by the general diary entry (Ex.Ka. 22) of  the  said Police Station.     It may be noted that the investigation in this case  was conducted   without  loss  of time.  Since  the  murder  was committed  at  a  public  place  where  the   Sub-Divisional magistrate  and  Tehsildar were present,  the  Investigating Officer   must  have  been  keen  to  arrest   the   accused immediately.  That  was  perhaps  the  reason  why  he  took proceedings   under  sec.  82/83  Cr.P.C.  We  must   really appreciate the proper and prompt investigation made in  this case.     We have given our anxious consideration to all  material facts  and  circumstances of the case. It seems to us,  that the decision of the High  Court cannot be supported.     In  the  result,  we  allow  these  appeals,  set  aside judgment  of  the  High Court and rstore that of  the  trial court.  The  conviction  and  sentence  awarded  aginst  the accused are restored. He shall undergo the remaining part of sentence.     R.S.S.                               Appeals allowed.