# KHUJJl@SURENDRA TJWARI v. ·- THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - **Citation:** [1991] 3 S.C.R. 1 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1991-07-16 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal E No. 413 of 1982 - **Bench:** A.M. Ahmadi, V. Ramaswami, K. Rama Sw Amy - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/khujjl-surendra-tjwari-v-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-11081 - **Pages:** 25 ## Headnote B Evidence Act, 1872: Hostile witness-Evidence of-Whether to be treated as wholly effaced from record or could be accepted to the extent dependable-Prosecution witness expressing doubt in crossexamination regarding indentity of some of the asssai/ants-Whether evidence in examination-in-chief acceptable-Presence of same set of Panch witnesses for all discoveries and attachments-Whether perC rnissible-Evidence of interested party-Whether could be overlooked. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Section 174-0bject and scope of-Inquest report-Whether should contain names of witnesses. Section 386( l)(b )-Evidence of witnesses-Reappraisal by appellate court-Whether permissible. Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302, 34 and 149-0ffence of murder-Several persons charged-Al/ accused except one acquittedD No appeal by State against acquittal-Whether appellate court can E reappreciate evidence to determine persons committing the offence and record conviction notwithstanding acquittal of co-accused. Practice and Procedure Per incuriam-Omission to refer decision of larger Bench in the Court's decision-Effect of. The appellant was convicted by the courts below under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of one G. It F was alleged that when the deceased and his companion, PW-4 were proceeding in a rickshaw, pulled by PW-3, the appellant and his five companions launched an attack on them. While PW-4 received an injury hy a cycle chain, the deceased received stab injuries, to which the G succumbed on the spot. On the First Information Report lodged by PW-4, statements of three eye witnesses viz. PW-1, an on-looker and PWs 3 and 4 recorded during the course of investigation, and the evidence regarding discovery of incriminating articles and find of human blood on them, the appellant and his five companions were chargesheeted for the murder ot'the deceased. A B c D E F G H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1991] 3 S.C.R. During the trial, two of the eye-witnesses, viz. PWs 3 and 4 were declared hostile, since they expressed their inability to identify the accused per;11ns as assailants of the deceased. Though PW I supported the prosecution in examination-in .. chief, he expressed some doubt regarding the identity of the appellant and one other assailant in the cross-examinatiou. The trial court refused to place reliance on the evidence of the three eye-witnesses and acquitted all, except the appellant. It convicted the appellant under Section 302 !PC and sentenced him to life imprisonment on the evidence that the appellant was absconding, that he had discovered the weapon which was found to be stained with human blood and the factum of find of human blood on the pant worn by him at the time of his arrest. The appellant's appeal was dismissed by the High Court. While ignoring the evidence of PWs 3 and 4, the High Court relied on the evidence of PW-I holding that his subsequent attempt to create a doubt regarding the identity of the appellant was of no consequence, since there \\'as intrinsic material in his evidence to establish the presence of the appellant amongst the assailants of deceased. It also relied on the discovery evidence and find of human blood on the weapon and on the pant he was wearing at the time of his arrest. The State did not prefer an appeal against the five companions of the appellant who were acquitted by the trial court. In the appeal before this Court on behalf of the appellant it was contended that (I) the prosecution version regarding the incident, particularly, the involvement of the appellant was highly doubtful since the correctness of the First Information Report, purported to have been lodged by PW4 was itself doubtful since he had disowned it; (2) the presence of PW I at the scene of offence and at the time of occurrence was highly doubtful anti the High Court committed an error in placing reliance on his testimony in examination-in-chief, while brushing aside his statement in cross-examination; (3 ## Text _Characters 0–39,921 of 69,267. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39921 for what follows._ KHUJJl@SURENDRA TJWARI A v. ·- THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH JULY 16, 1991 [A.M. AHMADI, V. RAMASWAMI AND K. RAMA SW AMY, JJ .] B Evidence Act, 1872: Hostile witness-Evidence of-Whether to be treated as wholly effaced from record or could be accepted to the extent dependable-Prosecution witness expressing doubt in crossexamination regarding indentity of some of the asssai/ants-Whether evidence in examination-in-chief acceptable-Presence of same set of Panch witnesses for all discoveries and attachments-Whether perC rnissible-Evidence of interested party-Whether could be overlooked. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Section 174-0bject and scope of-Inquest report-Whether should contain names of witnesses. Section 386( l)(b )-Evidence of witnesses-Reappraisal by appellate court-Whether permissible. Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302, 34 and 149-0ffence of murder-Several persons charged-Al/ accused except one acquittedD No appeal by State against acquittal-Whether appellate court can E reappreciate evidence to determine persons committing the offence and record conviction notwithstanding acquittal of co-accused. Practice and Procedure Per incuriam-Omission to refer decision of larger Bench in the Court's decision-Effect of. The appellant was convicted by the courts below under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of one G. It F was alleged that when the deceased and his companion, PW-4 were proceeding in a rickshaw, pulled by PW-3, the appellant and his five companions launched an attack on them. While PW-4 received an injury hy a cycle chain, the deceased received stab injuries, to which the G succumbed on the spot. On the First Information Report lodged by PW-4, statements of three eye witnesses viz. PW-1, an on-looker and PWs 3 and 4 recorded during the course of investigation, and the evidence regarding discovery of incriminating articles and find of human blood on them, the appellant and his five companions were chargesheeted for the murder ot'the deceased. A B c D E F G H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1991] 3 S.C.R. During the trial, two of the eye-witnesses, viz. PWs 3 and 4 were declared hostile, since they expressed their inability to identify the accused per;11ns as assailants of the deceased. Though PW I supported the prosecution in examination-in .. chief, he expressed some doubt regarding the identity of the appellant and one other assailant in the cross-examinatiou. The trial court refused to place reliance on the evidence of the three eye-witnesses and acquitted all, except the appellant. It convicted the appellant under Section 302 !PC and sentenced him to life imprisonment on the evidence that the appellant was absconding, that he had discovered the weapon which was found to be stained with human blood and the factum of find of human blood on the pant worn by him at the time of his arrest. The appellant's appeal was dismissed by the High Court. While ignoring the evidence of PWs 3 and 4, the High Court relied on the evidence of PW-I holding that his subsequent attempt to create a doubt regarding the identity of the appellant was of no consequence, since there \\'as intrinsic material in his evidence to establish the presence of the appellant amongst the assailants of deceased. It also relied on the discovery evidence and find of human blood on the weapon and on the pant he was wearing at the time of his arrest. The State did not prefer an appeal against the five companions of the appellant who were acquitted by the trial court. In the appeal before this Court on behalf of the appellant it was contended that (I) the prosecution version regarding the incident, particularly, the involvement of the appellant was highly doubtful since the correctness of the First Information Report, purported to have been lodged by PW4 was itself doubtful since he had disowned it; (2) the presence of PW I at the scene of offence and at the time of occurrence was highly doubtful anti the High Court committed an error in placing reliance on his testimony in examination-in-chief, while brushing aside his statement in cross-examination; (3) same set of Panch witnesses had been employed for all the discovery panchnamas as well as the attachment of clothes of the appellant and others and since PWS, Panch witness was closely associated with the family and was a stock witness for the prosecution, no reliance could he placed on the evidence of such a highly interested and chosen witness, and consequently find of human blood on the weapon and the pant lost its probative value; (4) the two circumstances, viz. that the appellant was not found for two days, and human blood was present on the weapon and his pant constituted extremely thin and weak evidence to record a finding of guilt, particularly, when the trial court had discarded all the eye-witnesses' evidence and doubted the contents of the FIR, and when the Serologist did not determine the blood group of the stains on the weapon and pant of the • .. KHUJJI v. STATE OF M.P. 3 appellant; (5) in the absence of positive evidence that the fatal injury A :'io. I was caused by the appellant only, his conviction substantively under Section 302 !PC could not be sustained; (6) since appellant's + companion were acquitted, and the State had not preferred any appeal against their acquittal, he could not be convicted with the aid of Section 34 or 149 !PC, since the acquittal of the co-accused created a legal bar against his conviction, which could not be got over by reappreciation of B evidence; and (7) the eye-witnesses' evidence could not be relied upon as their names did not figure in the inquest report prepared at the earliest time. On behalf of the State it was contended that (I) evidence of PWs 3 and 4 could not be treated as effaced from the record, merely because c the prosecution chose to treat them as hostile on the limited question of identity of assailants; (2) PW-I was neither a chance witness nor was he faking his presence at the scene of occurrence at the material time; (3) it was not necessary in law to mention names of witnesses in the inquest report as the purpose of preparing the report was merely to make a note of the physical condition of the body and the marks of injury thereon D }· noticed at that point of time; (4) nothing was alleged against PW-5, Panch witness, nor the appellant had given any explanation regarding existence of human blood on the weapon and his pant in his statement recorded under section 313 of the Cr. P.C.; (5) even if the appellant could not be substantively convicted under Section 302 IPC, he could still be convicted with the aid of Section 34 or 149 IPC, if the Court E came to the conclusion that more than one person launched the attack. and notwithstanding the acquittal of others by the trial court, this Court could reach its own conclusion as the higher court was not bound by the appreciation of evidence by the trial court or even the High Court. F Dismissing the appeal, this Court, HELD: 1.1 The evidence of a prosecution Witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether, but the same G -1,-· can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. [BC) Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, [1976) 2 S.C.R. 921; Rabinder Kumar Dey v, State of Orissa, [1976) 4 S.C.C. 233 and Syed Iqbal v. State of Karnataka, [ 1980) I S.C.R. 95, relied on. H A 4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 3 S.C.R. 1.2 In the instant case the evidence of two eye-witnesses PW 3 and .i challenged by the prosecution in cross-examination because they refused to name the accused in the dock as the assailants of the deceased. The trial court made no effort to scrutinise the evidence of + these two witnesses even in regard to the factum of the incident. It refused to look into their evidence treating it as non-est, on their being B declared hostile by the prosecution. This approach of the trial court is legally unacceptable. The High Court has not endeavoured to assess their evidence since it thought that the conviction of the appellant could be sustained on the evidence of PW-I. From the evidence of these two witnesses the fact that the deceased and PW-4 came to the place of occurrence in the rickshaw of PW-3 is established. So also the fact that c D E on their reaching the place of occurrence, they were surrounded by some persons and an assault was launched on them in which PW4 received an injury and the deceased died is also established. The only area they have not supported the prosecution and resiled from their earlier statements is regarding the identity of the assailants but the fact remains that the deceased had received three injuries as narrated by PW-12, who conducted the post-mortem, and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Similarly, there is no doubt at all that PW-4 had gone to the police station and had lodged the First Information Report. The detailed narration about the incident in th• First Information Report goes to show that the subsequent attempt of PW-4 to disown the document, while admitting his signature, thereon, is a shift for reasons best known to him. Once the presence of PW-4 is accepted, the presence of PW-3 at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted. [13D, 14C, D-F, BJ 2. The Trial Court has not accepted PW-l's evidence on the ground that he was not a natural witness, and was only a chance witness. However, on a reading of the entire evidence of PW-I it is clear F that his statement in cross-examination on the question of identity of the appellant and one of his companions is a clear attempt to wriggle out of what he had stated earlier in his examination-in-chief. Since the inci- ·' dent occurred at a public place, it is reasonable to infer that the street light illuminated the place sufficiently to enable this witness to identify the assailants. During the one month period that elapsed since the G . recording of examination-in-chief, something transpired which made him shift his evidence on the question of identity to help the appellant. In the circumstance there is no doubt that PW-11tad ample opportunity. to identify the assailants of the deceased, his presence at the scene of occurrence is not unnatural nor is his statement that he had come to purchase vegetables unacceptable. There are no contradiction in his H evidence to doubt his testimony. He is a totally independent wit1 - + KHUJJJ v. STATE OF ,\r.P. 5 ness, who had no cause to give false evidence against the appellant and his companions. Therefore, his evide!'ce is ac.ceptable regarding the time. place and manner of the incident as well as the identity of the assailants. [14H-16C] A 3.1 The evidence of eye-witnesses could not be rejected on the ground that their names did not figure in the inquest report prepared at B the earliest point of time. [160] 3.2 A pemsal of Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code would clearly show that the object of the proceedings under this Section is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and if so what is the apparent cause of the death. The question regarding the details as to how the de<;e.ased was assualted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted is foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under the section. In these circumstances, neither in practice nor in law, was it necessary for the police to have mentioned these details in the inquest report. [16E-F] Pedda Narain v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1975) Supp. S.C.R. 84 relied on. 4.1 There was no injunction in law against the same set of witnesc D ses being present at the successive enquiries if notliing could be urged E against them. Even in the case of an interested party, his evidence cannot be overlooked on that ground. [17G. E] Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Om Prakash. [19721 2 S.C.R. 765, relied on. F 4.2 In the instant case, merely because the same set of Panch witnesses were used for witnessing all the three discoveries as well as the attachment of the clothes of the appellant and his companions, PW-S's evidence could not be discarded since nothing had surfaced in crossexamination to shake his evidence. Besides, except being a good neighbour nothing more is shown against him. As regards recovery of G --,., weapon, as well as the appellant's blood stained pant, there is hardly any effective cross-examination, nor has the appellant offered any explanation in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Hence PW S's evidence cannot be rejected on the specious plea of being an interested witness. In the circumstances, his evidence was rightly accepted by both theconrts below. [17A, C-D, F, ISA] H A B 6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 3 S.C.R. 5.1 The factum of find of the incriminating weapon from the appellant's garage, and his inability to explain the presence of human blood thereon is a circumstance against him. Similarly, the existence of human blood on the pant that he was wearin2 at the time of his arrest, for which no explanation was offered by him, is also a circumstance against him, particularly because no injury was noticed on him. [18B-D] 5.2 There is also direct testimony of PW-I, besides that of PWs 3 and 4. The find of human blood on the weapon and the pant, with no explanation for the same lends corroboration to the testimony of PW-I. When he states that he saw the appellant inflicting a knife blow on the deceased. In the circumstances, it cannot be accepted that in the C absence of determination of blood group, the find of human blood is of no consequence. [19B-C] D E F G Kansa Behera v. State of Orissa, [1987] 3 S.C.C. 480 and Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab, [ 1989] Suppl. 2 S.C.C. 21, distinguished. 6.1 No doubt it is not possible from the ocular evidence to record a definite finding of fact that the appellant had caused the fatal injury. On the contrary the evidence of PW-I indicates that in all probability the stab wound inflicted by the appellant resulted in injury No. 2, which by itself was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Since the prosecution evidence does not disclose that the fatal blow, which caused injury No. I was given by the appellant, it means that the fatal blow was given by someone else, and this establishes the fact that more than one person participated in the commission of the crime. On an independent examination appreciation of the evidence of the three eye-witnesses, viz. PWs I, 3 and 4 that several persons had participated in the commission of the crime. The failure on the part of PWs 3 and 4 to identify the others does not alter the situation. On the other hand, from the evidence of PW I, it is clear that some of the accused participated in the commission of the crime. [19E, 25A-C] 6.2 No doubt in the absence of a State arpeal, the High Court could not, nor can this Court interfere with the acquittal of the coaccused, but this Court is not bound by the facts found proved on the appreciation of evidence by the courts below, and is, in law, entitled to reach its own conclusion different from the one recorded by the courts below on a review of the evidence. The acquittal of the accused does not create a legal bar against the conviction of the appellant with the aid of H Section 34 or 149 IPC. [21C-F] )' v KHUJJI '· STATE 01' M.P. [AHMADI. J.] 7 Brathi v. State of Punjab, [1991] 1SCC519, affirmed. Baikuntha Nath Chaudhury v. The State of Orissa, [1973] 2 SCC 432; Kasturi Lal v. State of Haryana, [1976] 3 SCC 570; Chandubhai Shanabhai Parmdr v. State of Gujarat, [1981] Suppl. SCC 46; Sukh Ram v. State of M. P., [1989] Suppl. 1 SCC 214 and Krishna Govind A Patil v. State of Maharashtra, [ 1964] 1 SCR 678, distinguished. B 6.3 In the circumstances, the conviction of the appellant can be sustained with the aid of Section 34 or 149 as the case may be and it is safe to confirm the appellant's conviction with the aid of section 34 I.P.C. [25D] The conviction of the appellant is accordingly confirmed and sentence awarded to him is maintained. [25E] 7. The omission to refer to the decision of larger Bench rendered c in Krishna Govind Patil's case does not render the d~cision in Brathi's case per incuriam. In any event that decision does not take a view o inconsistent with the ratio laid down in Brathi's case. [24G] Sukh Ram v. State of M.P., [1989] suppl. 1 SCC 214 and Brathi v. State of Punjab, [1991] 1 SCC 519 referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal E No. 413 of 1982. From the Judgment and Order dated 12.1.1982 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1979. U.R. Lalit, Prithvi Raj, S.S. Khanduja, J.P. Dubey, Y.P. F Dhingra, B.K. Satija, Uma Nath Singh, S. Karnail and S.K. Gambhir for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AHMADI, J. This appeal by special leave is preferred by the G appellant Khujji@Surender Tiwari who has been convicted by both the courts below under section 302 !PC for the murder of one Guiab. The facts leading to this appeal, briefly stated, are that on the evening of May 20, 1978 the deceased Guiab and his companion PW4 Ramesh Chander hired a Rickshaw to go to the dispensary of Dr. Mukherjee. PW 3 Kishan Lal pulled the Rickshaw and while he was passing H A B c D E F 8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 3 S.C.R. through Suji Mohalla near Panchsheel Talkies the appellant and his companions surrounded the Rickshaw and launched an attack on the deceased and his companion. PW 4 was the first to receive an injury by a cycle chain. Sensing trouble both Guiab and PW 4 jumped out of the Rickshaw and ran in different directions. Guiab ran towards Suji Mohalla whereas PW 4 ran towards Panchsheel Talkies. They were chased by the assailants who formed themselves into two groups. PW 4 was fortunate enough to escape with not too serious an injury but his companion Guiab received stab wounds to which he succumbed on the spot. The evidence of PW 12 Dr. Nagpal shows that the deceased had received three injuries, namely, (i) a penetrating stab wound with a second injury on the intercostal space on right side rib of the size of 3 ems x Scms x km, (ii) a piercing stab wound Scms below the scapular bone and Berns outside the vertibral column of the size of 2.5cms x l.Scms x 3cms, and (iii) an incised wound on the frontal auxiliary line 2.5cms x l.5cms x 2cms deep on the left hipocardium region. This witness, who performed the post-mortem, deposed that injury No. 1 which had injured the heart was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He further stated that all the three injuries were collectively sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The three articles, namely, the knife, the Chhuri and the Chhura which were attached in the course of investigation were shown to this witness and he stated that the three injuries were possible by the aforesaid articles. It is clear from this evidence that Guiab died a homicidal death. To bring home the guilt against the appellant the prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of three eye-witnesses, namely, PW 1 Koma! Chand (an on-looker), PW 3 Kishan Lal (the Rickshaw Puller) and PW 4 Ramesh (the companion of the deceased) besides the find of human blood on the weapon discovered at the instance of the appellant and on the !ant which he was wearing at the time of his arrest. The First Information Report, Exh. P-3, was lodged by PW 4 Ramesh immediately after the incident and the same was recorded by the Investigating Officer PW 13 Ramji Singh at about 9.15 p.m. In the G said first information report PW 4 gave the details regarding the incident and furnished the names of all the six assailants. Soon after the first information report was lodged the Investigating Officer visited the scene of occurrence and drew up the Panchnama on the basis of which a sketch plan Exh. P-20A was prepared in due course. The appellant and some of his companions could " 1t be traced till May 22, 1978. H After they were traced, they were interwgated and on their expressing y KHUJJI v. STATE OF M.P. [AHMADI. J.] 9 willingness to discover the weapons used in the commission of the crime, the Investigating Officer summoned two witnesses, namely, PW 5 Panna Lal and Rajinder to act as Panch witnesses. The prosecution case is that in the presence of these witnesses the appellant and his companions made certain confessional statements under section 27 of Evidence Act which led to the discovery of the weapons used in the commission of the crime. According to the prosecution the appellant Khujji discovered a Chhura (knife) from his garage and the same was attached under the Panchnama Exh. P-9. Since this weapon had bloodlike stains, it was sent to the Chemical Analyser and Serologist for examination and report. The report indicates that it was stained with human blood but the blood group could not be determined. The other A B c two companions of the appellant, namely, Parsu and Guddu, also discovered a knife, Exh. P-7, and a Chhura, Exh. P-13, which were attached under Panchnamas Exh. P-6 and P-12, respectively. As stated earlier the shirt and pant of Khujji were also attached as blood-like stains were noticed thereon. Both these articles were sent to the Chemical Analyser and Serologist. So far as the shirt is concerned, since the blood stains were disintegrated it was not possible to D determine the origin thereof. But so far as the pant is concerned, the report states that the stains were of human blood but the blood group could not be determined as the result of the test was inconclusive. On the basis of the first information report, the statements of three witnesses recorded in the course of investigation as well as the evidence regarding discovery and the find of human blood on the incriminating E articles, the appellant and five others were charge-sheeted for the murder of Guiab. The trial court acquitted all except the appellant. Before the trial court PW 4 Ramesh, who had lodged the first information report, tried to disown it. He was declared hostile as he expressed his inability to identify the accused persons as the assailants of the deceased Guiab. PW 3, the Rickshaw Puller, while narrating the inciF dent expressed a similar inability and he too was treated as hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. The third eye-witness PW I Koma! chand, however, supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief but in his cro~s-examlnation he expressed some doubt regarding the identity of the appellant and Guddu stating that he had seen their backs only. The trial court came to the conclusion G that not only was this witness a chance witness but his presence at the scene of occurrence was extremely doubtful as it was difficult to believe that he had come out at that hour to purchase vegetables. Thus the trial court refused to place reliance on the evidence of the three eye-witnesses. The trial court, however, came to the conclusion that the appellant was absconding and that he had discovered the weapon H A B c 10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 3 S.C.R. which was found to be stained with human blood. It also relied on the factum of find of human blood on the pant worn by the appellant at the time of his arrest. On the basis of this evidence the trial court convicted the appellant under section 302 JPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Khujji preferred an appeal against the said conviction. The High Court while ignoring the evidence of PW 3 Kishan Lal and PW 4 Ramesh relied on the evidence of PW 1 Kamal Chand and came to the conclusion that his evidence clearly established the presence of the appellant as one of the assailants notwithstanding his effort in cross-examination to wriggle out of his statement in examination-i-nehief in regard to the identity of the appellant. The High Court noticed that the examination-in-chief of this witness was recorded on November 16, 1976 whereas his cross-examination commenced on December 15, 1976 i.e. after a month and in between he seemed to have been won over or had succumbed to threat. This inference was drawn on the basis of PW 3's statement that he was severely beaten on the night previous to his appearance in court as a witness. The High Court, therefore, took the view that the subsequent attempt of PW 1 Koma! D Chand to create a doubt regarding the identity of the appellant was of no consequence since there was intrinsic material in his evidence to establish the presence of the &ppellant amongst the assailants of deceased Guiab. Relying further on the discovery evidence as well as the find of human blood on the weapon found from the garage of the appellant and on his pant which he was wearing at the time of his E arrest, the High Court came to the conclusion that his convictio_n was well founded and dismissed his appeal. It may here be mentioned that the State did not prefer an appeal against the five companions of the appellant who came to be acquitted by the trial court. It is in these circumstances that the appellant has invoked this Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. F Mr. U.R. Lalit, learned counsel for the appellant, took us through the entire evidence and submitted that the prosecution version regarding the incident, particularly the involvement of the appellant, is highly doubtful since the correctness of the statement made in the first information report purporting to have been lodged by PW 4 G Ramesh is itself doubtful because Ramesh himself has dis-owned it. Since the prosecution had declared both PW 3 Kishan Lal and PW 4 Ramesh as hostile to the prosecution the trial court was justified in refusing to rely on their evidence. He further submitted that the presence of PW 1 Koma! Chand at the place of occurrence at that hour was highly doubtful and this doubt was reinforced by his conduct in not H raising a hue and cry or going to the help of the victim. The evidence r KHUJJI v. STATE OF M.P. [AHMADI, J.J 11 disclosed that this witness resides at a place almost two furlongs from the scene of occurrence and claims to have seen the incident from a A distance ot about 22 feet from a point wherefrom the incident could not have been witnessed by him as is evident from the physical condition of the locality described in this sketch Exh. P-20A. He, therefore, submitted that the trial court was justified in describing this witness as a chance witness and in doubting his presence at the scene of occurB rence at the relevant point of time. According to him the High Court committed an error in placing reliance on the testimony of this witness. He, however, submitted that the trial court was not justified in recording the conviction on the mere fact that the appellant could not be found for two days and there was human blood on his weapon and pant attached ih the course of investigation. These two circumstances, contended counsel, constituted extremely thin and weak evidence to C record a finding of guilt particularly when the trial Court had discarded the evidence of all the three eye-witnesses and had doubted the contents of the first information report Exh. P-3. Lastly he submitted that the High Court committed an error in brushing aside the statement made tiy PW 1 Koma! Chand in his cross-examination which went to D show that his evidence regarding identity of the appellant was highly suspect. Merely because there was a time gap between his examination-in-chief and his. cross-examination the High Court was not justified in jumping to the conclusion that the accused party had succeeded in winning him over by threat or otherwise. On this line of reasoning Mr. Lalit contended that the High Court ought not to have E interfered with the appreciation of his evidence by the trial court. Besides these submissions based on the evidence of the three eyewitnesses and the find of human blood on the weapon and pant of the appellant, Mr. Lalit further submitted that one set of Panch witnesses, PW 5 Pannalal and.Rajinder (not examined), had been employed for all the discovery panchnamas as well as the attachment of clothes of F the appellant and others which went to show that PW 5 was a stock witness for the prosecution. He, therefore, submitted that no reliance could be placed on the evidence of PW Sand consequently the find of human blood on the weapon and the pant looses its probative value. In the end he submitted that the conviction of the appellant substantively u·nder section 302 !PC was not well founded for the simple reason that G not a single witness had deposed that the fatal injury was caused by the appellant. The evidence of PW 12 Dr. Nagpal shows that the deceased had three injuries and out of them only injury No. 1 was by itself sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. So far as injuries Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, the medical evidrtce does not show that each one of them separately was sufficient in the ordinary H A B c 12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 3 S.C.R. course of nature to cause death. But the medical evidence is to the effect that all the three in juries taken collectively were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Jn the absence of positive evidence that injury No. I was caused by the appellant and none else, his conviction substantively under section 302 cannot be sustained. In that case at best he can be convicted for hurt under Section 324, !PC. He further submitted that since his companions were acquitted and the State had not preferred any appeal against their acquittal he could not be convicted with the aid of sections 34 or 149 !PC. Mr. Prithvi Singh, the learned counsel for the State, submitted that the trial court was wrong in rejecting the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 merely because they were declared hostile as if their evidence was totally .against the prosecution on that account. He submitted that their evidence cannot be treated as effaced from the record merely because the prosecution chose to treat them as hostile on the limited question of identity of the assailants. Their evidence as to the occurrence and number of persons involved in the commission of the crime D can be relied upon along with that of PW 1 as he was neither a chance witness nor was he faking his presence at the scene of occurrence at the material time. His evidence regarding identity of the assailants is equally acceptable and his subsequent statement made in crossexamination after a time gap of almost one month was rightly brushed aside by the High Court, whatever be the reason for his change of E heart. With regard to the criticism regarding the absence of names of witnesses in the Inquest Report, counsel urged that it was not necessary in law to mention the names of the witnesses in the inquest report as the purpose of preparing the inquest report was merely to make a note of the physical condition of the body and the marks of injury F thereon noticed at that point of time. On the question of value to be attached to the evidence of the Panch witness PW 5, counsel submitted that nothing was alleged against. this witness nor had the appellant given any explanation regarding existence of human blood on the weapon and the pant attached from him in his statement recorded under section 313 of the Code. On the question regarding the offence committed by the appellant, counsel submitted that once it is proved G that more than one person had participated in the assault, the appellant could be convicted for the murder of the deceased with the aid of section 34 or 149 !PC. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal is without merit and deserves to be dismissed. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions H made by the learned counsel for the contesting parties. The fact that KHUJJI v. STATE OF M.P. [AHMADI. J.i 13 an incident of tlie type alleged by the prosecution occurred on May 20, A 1978 at about 8.20 p.m. is not seriously disputed nor is the location of the incident doubted. The evidence of PW 3 Kishan Lal and PW 4 Ramesh came to be rejected by the trial court because they were declared hostile to the prosecution by the learned Public Prosecutor as they refused to identify the appellant and his companions in the dock as the assailants of the deceased. But counsel for the State is right when he submits that the evidence of a witness, declared hostile, is not wholly effaced from the record and that part of evidence which is otherwise acceptable can be acted upon. It seems to be well settled by the decisions of this Court Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, [ 1976] 2 SCR 921; Rabinder Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa, [1976] 4 SCC 233 B c and Syed Iqbal v. State of Karnataka, [1980] 1 SCR 95 that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and crossexamined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treaied as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. In the present case the evidence of the D aforesaid two eye-witnesses was challenged by the prosecution in cross-examination because they refused to name the accused in the dock as the assailants of the deceased. We are in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the State that the trial court made no effort to scrutinise the evidence of these two witnesses even in regard to the factum of the incident. On a careful consideration of E their evidence it becomes crystal clear that PW 4 had accompanied the deceased in PW 3's rickshaw to the place of incident. In the incident that occurred at the location pointed out by the prosecution, PW 4 " sustained an injury. His presence in the company of the deceased at the place of occurrence, therefore, cannot be doubted. Immediately after the incident within less than an hour thereof PW 4 went to the F police station and lodged the first information report. It is true that the first information report is not substantive evidence but the fact remains that immediately after the incident and before there was any extraneous intervention PW 4 went to the police station and narrated the incident. The first information report is a detailed document and it is not possible to believe that the investigating officer imagined those G details and prepared the document Exh. P 3. The detailed narration about the incident in the first information report goes to show that the subsequent attempt of PW 4 to dis-own the document, while admitting his signature thereon, is a shift for reasons best known to PW 4. We are, therefore, not prepared to accept the criticism that the version regarding the incident is the result of some fertile thinking on the part H A B c 14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 3 S.C.R. of the investigating officer. We are satisfied, beyond any manner of doubt, that PW 4 had gone to the police station and had lodged the first information report. To the extent he has been contradicted with the facts stated in the first information report shows that he has tried to resile from his earlier version regarding the incident. So also the presence of PW 3 at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted once the presence of PW 4 is accepted. The trial court did not go so far as to say that both these witnesses were not present at the scene of occurrence or that PW 4 was not injured in the incident but refused to look into their evidence treating their evidence as non-est on their being declared hostile by the prosecution. We think that the approach of the trial court insofar as the evidence of these two witnesses is concerned, is legally unacceptable. The High Court has not endeavoured to assess their evidence since it thought that the conviction of the appellant could be sustained on the evidence of PW 1 Koma! Chand. We are satisfied on a close scrutiny of the evidence of the aforesaid two eyewitnesses, PWs 3 and 4, that the deceased and PW 4 came to the place of occurrence in the rickshaw pulled by PW 3. On reaching the spot D where the incident occurred they were surrounded by certain persons who were lying in wait and a murderous assault was launched on them. The first to receive the injury was PW 4. Wlwn they gauged the intention of their assailants they jumped out of the rickshaw and both ran in different directions. The appellant first tried to chase PW 4 but later he turned to the deceased as he was informed by one of his companions E Gopal that the person he was pursuing was not Gulab. Therefore, from the evidence of these two eye-witnesses the fact that the deceased and PW 4 came to the place of occurrence in the rickshaw of PW 3 is established. So also the fact that on their reaching the place of occurrence they were surrounded by some persons and an assault was launched on them in which PW 4 received an injury and Gulab died is F clearly established. The only area where they have not supported the prosecution and have resiled from their earlier statements is regarding the identity of the assailants. We will deal with that part of the evidence a little later but the fact remains that the deceased had received three injuries as narrated by PW 12 Dr. Nagpal, to which he succumbed on the spot. Once these facts are accepted as proved, the G only question which really survives for consideration is whether the appellant was an assailant of the deceased. That brings us to the evidence of PW 1 Komal Chand. Komal Chand's evidence was not accepted by the trial court on the ground that he was not a natural witness and was only a chance witness. PW 1 H explained his presence by stating that he had gone to the market to - KHUJJI v. STATE OF M.P. [AHMADI, J.J 15 purchase vegetables and while he was returning therefrom on foot with A his cycle in hand he heard a coqimotion and saw the incident from a short distance. Being a resident of Suji Mohalla, the place of occur- ~ rence was clearly in the vicinity thereof and, therefore, his presence at the market place could not be considered to be unnatural. It is not unnatural for working people to purchase vegetables at that hour and, therefore, his explanation regarding his presence cannot be ruled out B as false. The sketch map prepared by PW 11 Gaiser Prasad shows that he had seen the incident from a short distance of hardly 22 feet although PW 1 says he saw it from the square. Since the incident occurred at a ' public place with a lamp-post nearby, the possibilit)' of his having identified the assailants could not be ruled out. The examination-inchief of this witness was recorded on November 16, 1976 when he c identified all the assailants by name. He stated that he knew the six accused persons in court and they were the persons who had surrounded the rickshaw and launched an assault on PW 4 and the .deceased Guiab. Of them Gopal struck PW 4 with a chain. He also stated that the appellant Khujji