In CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.739 OF 2017-SC- Conduct of accused alone, though may be relevant u/s 8 of Indian Evidence Act, cannot form basis of conviction: SC Justices Surya Kant & J.B. Pardiwala [14-07-2022]

Read Order: SHAHAJA @ SHAHJAHAN ISMAIL MOHD. SHAIKH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 

Mansimran Kaur

New Delhi, July 15, 2022: The Supreme Court has observed that the conduct of an accused may be a relevant fact under Section 8 of the  Indian Evidence Act, yet the same, by itself, cannot be a ground to convict him or hold him guilty and that too, for a serious offence like murder.

The Division bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice J.B. Pardiwala affirmed High Court’s view on the point that the Courts below had rightly  believed the two eye witnesses and said, “To put it simply, in assessing the value of the evidence of the eye- witnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence.”

It was the case of the prosecution that the deceased and the appellant were working as labourers at various places in the Vile Parle area, Mumbai & kneweach other. The deceased along with the other labourers used to sleep underneath or on the bridge situated near the Railway Station. The original first informant, first witness, was the priest of the Hanuman Temple.In 2006 a quarrel ensued between the appellant and the deceased on account of money which was witnessed by the first witness, Nandlal. 

Both Nandlal and eighth witnesss, Udaysingh, saw the appellant assaulting the deceased with a hammer on his head. After the assault the appellant walked away from the place of the incident holding the hammer in his hand. In the morning the police noticed that Mahankal was lying dead. 

In this backdrop, the first witness lodged the First Information Report which came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Thereafter, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence of murder, who, in turn, committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial under the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 .Then an order of conviction was passed and the appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.  The appellant assailed the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court in the High Court of Bombay. The High Court dismissed the appeal. It was this impugned judgment that was assailed by the appellant by way of present appeal. 

After hearing the submissions of the parties at length, the Court observed that the only question that was posed for consideration before this Court was whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order. 

In view of the same, the Court reaffirmed that the power of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is exercisable even in cases of concurrent findings of fact and such powers are very wide but in criminal appeals this Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact save in exceptional circumstances. 

Further reliance was placed on the case of State of Madras v. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer. By placing reliance on the same, this Court culled out the proposition that the  in the exercise of its power under Article 136, the Apex Court  is entitled to interfere with findings of fact, if the High Court acts perversely or otherwise improperly, i.e. the judgment of the High Court was liable to be set aside when certain salient features of the case were not properly appreciated or given due weight by the High Court.  Reliance was also placed on the judgments in Balak Ram v. State of U.P , Nain Singh v. State of U.P. and  State of U.P. v. Babul Nath,

Coming to the instant case, the Court was of the view that both the Courts below rightly believed the two eye witnesses i.e. the first and eighth witnesses. However, at the same time, the Court noted the law with respect to Section 27 of the Evidence Act and referred to the judgment in  State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu. It was further observed by the Top Court that in the absence of exact words, attributed to an accused person, as statement made by him being deposed by the Investigating Officer in his evidence, and also without proving the contents of the punchnama, the trial Court was not justified in placing reliance upon the circumstance of discovery of weapon.
Ultimately, the Court stated, “What we are trying to convey is that the conduct of the accused alone, though may be relevant under Section 8 of the Act, cannot form the basis of conviction.” Thus, in light of all the material evidence present on record, the Court concluded the matter by observing that there was no merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same was dismissed.