# STATE OF U.P v. KRISHNA MASTER & ORS

- **Citation:** [2010] 9 S.C.R. 563
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2010-08-03
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1180 of 2004
- **Bench:** Harjit Singh Bedi, J.M. Panchal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-u-p-v-krishna-master-ors-26933
- **Pages:** 42

## Headnote

A
B
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302134 - Homicidal death of six
persons - Conviction u/s. 302134 and imposition of death
sentence by trial court - Acquittal by High Court - On appeal,
C
held: Evidence of two eye-witnesses as well a$ doctor, who
conducted post mortem, that six persons died homicidal
death on account of firearm injuries - Evidence of eye
witnesses, first informant, who lost his brother; and minor child,
who lost five members of his family is trustworthy and
D
unimpeachable - Evidence does not suffer from major
contradictions and/or improvements nor noticeable
embellishment made - FIR was lodged promptly .:... Sufficient
electricity at the place of the incident and witnesses were able
to witness the incident - Motive established by prosecution -
E
Oral declaration by one of the deceased before his real
brother-first informant implicating the accused - Thus, order
of acquittal by High Court set aside and judgment of trial court
restored as regards the conviction - Accused sentenced to
rigorous imprisonment for life· - Evidence - Criminal Law -
F
Motive - Sentence/sentencing.
Evidence:
Oral evidence - Criteria for appreciation - Explained.
Rustic witness - Appreciation of evidence - Relevant
factors - Held: Evidence of such witness who is not educated
and comes from a poor strata of society, should be
appreciated as a whole - Rustic witness cannot be expected
G
563
.H
564
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 9 S.C.R.
A to have an exact sense of time and lay down with precision
the chain of events - Some discrepancies are bound to take
place if a witness is cross-examined at length for days together
- Such discrepancies should not be blown out of proportion.
8
FIR - Purpose of - Held: Is to enable a police officer to
satisfy himself as to whether commission of cognizable
offences is indicated so that further investigation can be
undertaken by him - FIR is to set criminal law in motion - It
need not be an encyclopedia of all the facts and
C circumstances on which the prosecution relies - It is never
treated as a substantive piece of evidence and has a limited
use.
Evidence Act, 1872 -
134 -
Number of witness -
Requirement of - Held: s. 134 provides that no particular
D number of witnesses is required for the proof of any fact -
Reliance can be placed on the solitary statement of a witness
if his statement is true and correct version of the prosecution
case.
E
According to the prosecution case, respondent no.
1 was on inimical terms with 'G' and 'J' (PW 1) because
of friendly relations between his daughter and the son of
PW1. On the fateful day, respondent nos. 1 to 3 armed
with firearms entered the house of 'G' and fired shots
F indiscriminately resulting in death of 'G', his wife and
three sons G' s another son (PW 2), a child aged 6 years,
witnessed the entire incident. He was sleeping and after
hearing the gun shots hid himself under the cot. PW 1 and
his wife on seeing this ghastly incident left the place of
incident. The respondents searched PW 1 and his family
G members but did not find them in the house. They
dragged 'B'-brother of PW 1 and shot him dead. PW 1
lodged a first information report. Investigation was carried
C':Jt. The respondents were charged for commission of
H
STATE OF U.P. v. KRISHNA MASTER & ORS.
565
offences u/s. 30.2/34 IPC. The trial court convicted the
A
respondents u/s. 302/34 IPC and awarded them death
sentence. The High Court acquitted the respondents and
rejected the reference made by the trial court for
confirmation of death sentence. Therefore, the appellantState filed the instant appeal.
B
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, it is firmly established by the prosecution that
the respondents are the persons who had committed six C
murders and, therefore, liable to be convicted u/s.302/34
IPC. [Para 18] [603-G]
2. From the evidence of two eye-witnesses as well as
of PW 4, who conducted autopsy on the dead bodies of o
six deceased persons, th

## Text

_Characters 0–39,878 of 88,498. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39878 for what follows._

[2010] 9 S.C.R. 563
STATE OF U.P.
v.
KRISHNA MASTER & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1180 of 2004)
AUGUST 3, 2010
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.]
A
B
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302134 - Homicidal death of six
persons - Conviction u/s. 302134 and imposition of death
sentence by trial court - Acquittal by High Court - On appeal,
C
held: Evidence of two eye-witnesses as well a$ doctor, who
conducted post mortem, that six persons died homicidal
death on account of firearm injuries - Evidence of eye
witnesses, first informant, who lost his brother; and minor child,
who lost five members of his family is trustworthy and
D
unimpeachable - Evidence does not suffer from major
contradictions and/or improvements nor noticeable
embellishment made - FIR was lodged promptly .:... Sufficient
electricity at the place of the incident and witnesses were able
to witness the incident - Motive established by prosecution -
E
Oral declaration by one of the deceased before his real
brother-first informant implicating the accused - Thus, order
of acquittal by High Court set aside and judgment of trial court
restored as regards the conviction - Accused sentenced to
rigorous imprisonment for life· - Evidence - Criminal Law -
F
Motive - Sentence/sentencing.
Evidence:
Oral evidence - Criteria for appreciation - Explained.
Rustic witness - Appreciation of evidence - Relevant
factors - Held: Evidence of such witness who is not educated
and comes from a poor strata of society, should be
appreciated as a whole - Rustic witness cannot be expected
G
563
.H
564
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 9 S.C.R.
A to have an exact sense of time and lay down with precision
the chain of events - Some discrepancies are bound to take
place if a witness is cross-examined at length for days together
- Such discrepancies should not be blown out of proportion.
8
FIR - Purpose of - Held: Is to enable a police officer to
satisfy himself as to whether commission of cognizable
offences is indicated so that further investigation can be
undertaken by him - FIR is to set criminal law in motion - It
need not be an encyclopedia of all the facts and
C circumstances on which the prosecution relies - It is never
treated as a substantive piece of evidence and has a limited
use.
Evidence Act, 1872 -
134 -
Number of witness -
Requirement of - Held: s. 134 provides that no particular
D number of witnesses is required for the proof of any fact -
Reliance can be placed on the solitary statement of a witness
if his statement is true and correct version of the prosecution
case.
E
According to the prosecution case, respondent no.
1 was on inimical terms with 'G' and 'J' (PW 1) because
of friendly relations between his daughter and the son of
PW1. On the fateful day, respondent nos. 1 to 3 armed
with firearms entered the house of 'G' and fired shots
F indiscriminately resulting in death of 'G', his wife and
three sons G' s another son (PW 2), a child aged 6 years,
witnessed the entire incident. He was sleeping and after
hearing the gun shots hid himself under the cot. PW 1 and
his wife on seeing this ghastly incident left the place of
incident. The respondents searched PW 1 and his family
G members but did not find them in the house. They
dragged 'B'-brother of PW 1 and shot him dead. PW 1
lodged a first information report. Investigation was carried
C':Jt. The respondents were charged for commission of
H
STATE OF U.P. v. KRISHNA MASTER & ORS.
565
offences u/s. 30.2/34 IPC. The trial court convicted the
A
respondents u/s. 302/34 IPC and awarded them death
sentence. The High Court acquitted the respondents and
rejected the reference made by the trial court for
confirmation of death sentence. Therefore, the appellantState filed the instant appeal.
B
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, it is firmly established by the prosecution that
the respondents are the persons who had committed six C
murders and, therefore, liable to be convicted u/s.302/34
IPC. [Para 18] [603-G]
2. From the evidence of two eye-witnesses as well as
of PW 4, who conducted autopsy on the dead bodies of o
six deceased persons, there is no manner of doubt that
the six deceased persons died homicidal death on
account of firearm injuries. All the murders were
committed in the night of August 10, 1991. The said
finding recorded by the trial court and upheld by the High
E
Court, being eminently just, is upheld. [Paras 6 and 7]
[581-F-H; 582-A-B]
3.1 While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the
approach must be whether the evidence of the witness
read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that
F
impression is found, it is necessary for the court to
scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view
the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in
the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out
whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence and
G
whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken
as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on
trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyperH
566
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 9 S.C.R.
A technical approach by taking sentences torn out of
context here or there from the evidence, attaching
importance to some technical error committed by the
investigating officer not going to the root of the matter
would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as
B a whole. If the court before whom the witness gives
evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about
the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness,
the appellate court which had not this benefit will have
to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by
c the trial court and unless the reasons are weighty and
formidable, it would not be proper for the appellate court
to reject the evidence on the ground of variations or
infirmities in the matter of trivial details. [Para 8) [582-CG]
D
3.2 Minor omissions in the police statements are
never considered to be fatal. The statements given by the
witnesses before the Police are meant to be brief
statements and could not take place of evidence in the
court. Small/trivial omissions would not justify a finding
E by court that the witnesses concerned are liars. The
prosecution evidence may suffer from inconsistencies
here and discrepancies there, but that is a short-coming
from which no criminal case is free. These discrepancies
are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of
F memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition,
shock and horror at the time of occurrence and threat to
the life. [Para 8) [582-G-H; 583-A-C]
3.3 The first and firm impression which one gathers
G on reading the testimony of PW 1 is that he is a rustic
witness. A rustic witness, who is subjected to fatiguing,
taxing and tiring cross-examination for days together, is
bound to get confused and make some inconsistent
statements. Some discrepancies are bound to take place
H
STATE OF U.P. v. KRISHNA MASTER & ORS.
567
if a witness is cross-examined at length for days together.
A
Therefore, the discrepancies noticed in the evidence of
a rustic witness who is subjected to grilling crossexamination should not be blown out of proportion. To
do so is to ignore hard realities of village life and give
undeserved benefit to the accused who have perpetrated
8
heinous crime. The basic principle of appreciation of
evidence of a rustic witness who is not educated and
comes from a poor strata of society is that the evidence
of such a witness should be appreciated as a whole. The
rustic witness as compared to an educated witness is
C
not expected to remember every small detail of the
incident and the manner in which the incident had
happened more particularly when his evidence is
recorded after a lapse of time. A witness is bound to face
shock of the untimely death of his near relative(s).
Therefore, the court must keep in mind all these relevant
D
factors while appreciating the evidence of a rustic
witness. [Para 10] [585-F-H; 586-A-C]
3.4 In the instant case, when the respondents were
firing from their respective fire arms, the High Court
should not have expected PW 1 to mention description
of the whole episode which had happened in a few
minutes. The rustic witnesses cannot be expected to
have an exact sense of time and so cannot be expected
to lay down with precision the chain of events. The High
Court gravely erred in not accepting evidence of PW 1
who being a rustic witness is not expected to always
have an alert mind and so have an idea of direction, area
and distance with precision from which -he had
witnessed the incident. In his examination in chief, PW 1
never claimed that he was standing by the side of the wall
of courtyard nor was it claimed by him that he had
witnessed the incident through mokhana, i.e. holes in the
intervening walls. Though the witness was crossE
F
G
H
568
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 9 S.C.R.
A examined for days together, he was never confronted
with his statement recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he
had allegedly stated before the Police Officer that he had
witnessed the incident through holes in the intervening
wall. It cannot be understood as to how the said statement
8 allegedly made before the police during the investigation
could have been pressed into service by the High Court
to reject the substantive evidence of PW 1 tendered
before the court wherein it was specifically asserted that
while in his house, he had witnessed the incident of
C killing of five members of G's family by the respondents
by firing gun shots. The prosecution satisfactorily
established that 'B' the brother of PW 1, lost his life
because of gun shots fired at him. The suggestion made
by the defence to the witness that he was making a false
claim that 'B' was alive and that on enquiry by him, 'B'
D had told him that the respondents had assaulted him with
fire arms, as he was tutored by the police outside the
court room was emphatically denied by him. [Para 10)
[586-C-H; 587 -A-CJ
E
3.5 PW 1 was cross-examined for days together on
the point as to where and in which direction houses of
'K', 'RS', 'D' etc. were situated. Such an attempt by
defence lawyer can hardly be approved. On reappreciation of evidence of PW 1, it is found that he did
F not make major improvements in his testimony before the
court; and the so-called discrepancies which are blown
out of proportion by the High Court are minor in nature
and do not relate to the substratum of the prosecution
story. The approach of the High Court in appreciating the
G evidence of PW 1, who was a rustic witness, is not only
contrary to the well settled principles governing
appreciation of evidence of a rustic witness but is
perverse also. [Para 10) [587-C-F]
State of UP. v. Anil Singh AIR 1988 SC 1998 - relied
H on.
STATE OF U.P. v. KRISHNA MASTER & ORS.
569
4.1 Section 134 of the Evidence Act specifically
A
provides that no particular number of witnesses shall, in
any case, be required for the proof of any fact. Reliance
can be placed on the solitary statement of a witness if the
court comes to the conclusion that the said statement is
the true and correct version of the case of the
B
prosecution. The courts are concerned with the merit
and the statement of a particular witness and not with the
number of witnesses examined by the prosecution. The
time-honoured rule of appreciating evidence is that it has
to be weighed and not counted. The law of evidence does c
not require any particular number of witnesses to be
examined in proof of a given fact. However, where the
court finds that the testimony of solitary witness is neither
wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, it r11ay, in given set
of facts, seek corroboration but to disbelieve reliable
0
testimony of a solitary witness on the ground that others
have not been examined is to do complete injustice to the
prosecution. [Para 15) [594-E-H; 595-A-B]
4.2 With regard to the testimony of PW 2, a child aged
6 years, it cannot be understood as to on what principle
E
and on which experience in real life, the High Court made
an observation that it is inconceivable that a child of his
understanding would be able to recapitulate facts in his
memory witnessed by him long ago. There is no principle
ot'law that it is inconceivable that a child of tender age
F
would not be able to recapitulate facts in his memory
witnessed by him long ago. PW2 claimed on oath before
the court that he had seen five members of his family
being ruthlessly killed by the respondents by firing gun
shots. When a child of tender age witnesses gruesome
G
murder of his father, mother, brothers etc. he is not likely
to forget the incident for his whole life and would
certainly recapitulate facts in his memory w,hen asked
about the same at any point of time, notwithstanding the
H
570
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 9 S.C.R.
A gap of about ten years between the incident and
recording of his evidence. It would be doing injustice to
a child witness possessing sharp memory to say that it
is inconceivable for him to recapitulate facts in his
memory witnessed by him long ago. A child of tender age
B is always receptive to abnormal events which take place
in its life and would never forget those events for the rest
of his life. The child would be able to recapitulate
correctly and exactly when asked about the same in
future. Therefore, the ground on which the reliable
c testimony of PW 2 came to be disbelieved, can hardly be
upheld. [Para 13] [591-A-H; 592-A-G]
4.3 On re-appreciation of evidence, it is found that the
testimony of PW 2 is cogent, consistent and reliable.
Taking into consideration the manner in which he testified
D before the Court and the fact that nothing could be
elicited in·his lengthy cross-examination for days together
to impeach his credibility, his testimony is reliable and
can be accepted without any reservations. Therefore,
n9n-examination of his brother or sister or few others
E who had gathered near the house of deceased 'GL' after
the incident is of no significance and does not affect
credibility of testimony of PW 2. The High Court was not
justified in brushing aside testimony of PW 2 while
considering case of the prosecution against the
F respondents. [Para 15] [595-8-E]
5. In the first information report, it is clearly
mentioned that at the time of occurrence, there was
electricity light at the place of incident and with the help
G of the said light, the first informant (PW 1) was able to
witness the incident wherein five members of deceased
G's family came to be murdered by the respondents. PW
1 stated that his brother 'B', who was sleeping in his shop
. was dragged out from the shop by the respondents by
H
STATE OF U.P. v. KRISHNA MASTER & ORS.
571
breaking open the door of the shop and thereafter was
A
murdered by them by firing gun shots. Regarding murder
of 'B', it is mentioned in the FIR that electric bulb was
burning at his house at the time of occurrence and,
therefore, PW 1 was able to witness the murder of his
brother 'B'. PW 2 stated that his father, mother and three
real brothers were murdered by the respondents by firing
gun shots and had asserted that at the time of the incident
one bulb was burning on the main gate of his house
whereas another bulb was burning on the thatched roof,
B
i.e., near the place where the deceased had slept during c
the night of the incident. Though both the witnesses were
cross-examined at great length, nothing significant could
be brought on record from which one can, with certainty,
deduce that there was no light of electricity bulbs at the
place of the incident. The assertion made by the two eye0
witnesses that they were able to witness the incident
because of availability of sufficient electricity light gets
corroboration from contemporaneous document. The
contradiction and/or omission in the statement of PW 2
recorded u/s. 161 Cr. P.C. could not be brought cm the
record of the case. The reliable evidence of PW 1 and PW
E
2 cannot be brushed aside on the ground that the
Investigating Officer had not taken into possession the
bulbs hanging on the place of incident. The High Court
was not justified in holding that there was no electric
power in the whole village and that there was complete
darkness on account of Amavasya of rainy season due
F
to which it was impossible for the eye-witnesses to
witness the incident. The visibility capacity of urban
people ~s not the standard to be applied to the villagers.
If the light available was sufficient for the accused
G
persons to identify their targets for firing shots, there is
no reason why the witnesses would not be able to
identify the respondents as the assailants. [Para 15] [595G-H; 596-A-H; 598-D-G]
H
572
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 9 S.C.R.
A
6.1 The FIR need not be an encyclopedia of all the
facts and circumstances on which the prosecution relies.
The main purpose of the FIR is to enable a police officer
to satisfy himself as to whether commission of
cognizable offences is indicated so that further
B investigation can be undertaken by him. The purpose of
the FIR is to set the criminal law in motion and it is not
customary to mention every minute detail of the
prosecution case in the FIR. The FIR is never treated as
a substantive piece of evidence and has a limited use, i.e.,
c it can be used for corroborating or contradicting the
maker of it. Law requires the FIR to contain basic
prosecution case and not minute details. The law
developed on the subject is that even if an accused is not
named in the FIR he can be held guilty if prosecution
0 leads reliable and satisfactory evidence which proves his
participation in the crime. Similarly, the witnesses whose
names are not mentioned in the FIR but examined during
the course of trial can be relied upon for the purpose of
basing conviction against the accused. Non-mentioning
of motive in the FIR cannot be regarded as omission to
E state important and material fact. The omission to give
details in the FIR as to the manner in which a weapon was
used by accused is not material omission amounting to
contradiction. In the instant case, the FIR was filed by a
rustic man and, therefore, non-mentioning of motive in
F the FIR cannot be attached much importance. [Para 15]
[600-E-H; 601-A-C]
6.2 The FIR is not the last word in the prosecution
case and in some cases detailed FIR could be a ground
G for suspicion. What is relevant to find out is whether the
FIR was lodged promptly or whether it is actuated by
mala tides. The record of the instant case indicates that
the FIR regarding gruesome murder of six persons was
filed promptly and without any avoidable delay and,
H
STATE OF U.P. v. KRISHNA MASTER & ORS.
573
therefore, false1 implication of any of the respondents in
A
such a grievous case stands ruled out. There is nothing
on the record to show that the FIR was result of
deliberation by the first informant with other persons. As
the FIR was lodged promptly, the informant's evidence
containing minor variations not affecting substratum of
B
prosecution story cannot be discarded on the ground
that motive which prompted the respondents to kill six
persons was not mentioned in the FIR. The prosecution
is not supposed to prove motive when it relies on direct
evidence, i.e., evidence of eye-witnesses. The c
prosecution examined first informant as PW1 who lost
his brother in the incident as well as PW2 who lost five
members of his family. Their evidence is found to be
trustworthy and unimpeachable. Their evidence does not
suffer from major contradictions and/or improvements
nor noticeable embellishment have been made by them.
As the prosecution has led acceptable eye-witness
account of the incident, the failure to establish motive
would not entitle the respondents to claim acquittal. [Para
15] [601-C-H; 602-A]
Superintendent of Police, CBI and Ors. vs. Tapan Kumar
Singh AIR 2003 SC 4140 - referred to.
. 6.3 A conjoint and purposeful reading of the FIR with
the reliable testimony of PW1 and that of PW2 makes it
very clear that the respondents were agitated and angry
when the daughter of respondent No.1 had eloped with
D
E
F
the son of the first informant. The evidence on record
shows that during the time of first elopement, on one day
son of the first informant-'AS' was spotted in the village
G
and on learning about the fact that son of the first
informant was seen in the village, the respondents were
prepared to take revenge to what is known as to maintain
honour of the family. However, the fact that 'AS' was likely
to be assaulted by the respondents had become known
H
574
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[201 O] 9 S.C.R.
A to wife of 'G' who had fore-warned 'AS' and 'AS' had,
therefore, left the village to save his life. The evidence also
indicates that the fact that 'AS' had left the village all of a
sudden because of information conveyed by wife of
deceased 'G' that th~ respondents were to assault him
B was later on learnt by the respondents and, therefore, the
respondents were bearing a grudge against 'G' and his
wife. The record further shows that when the daughter
of respondent no.1 had returned to the village, 'G' in the
presence of the first informant had made a suggestion to
c respondent no.1 that he should get his daughter married
with the son of the first informant upon which respondent
no.1 took an objection and asked 'G' not to play with the
honour of his family. Sufficient evidence was led by the
prosecution to establish motive which prompted the
0 respondents to kill five members of family of deceased
'G'. What weighed with the High Court in disbelieving the
motive suggested by the prosecution was the fact that
in the FIR lodged by PW 1, it was not stated that because
wife of 'G' had forewarned 'AS' about impending assault
E on him by the respondents, they were not able to take
revenge against 'AS' and that 'G' had suggested to
respondent no.1 to get his daughter married with son of
PW 1./ The High Court held that such story was
developed for the first time during trial by PW 1 who was
admittedly on inimical terms with the respondents. [Para
F 15] [599-D-H; 600-A-D]
6.4 The High Court committed serious error in
disbelieving the oral dying declaration made by
deceased '8' before his real brother PW 1 implicating the
G respondents as his assailants. The reasons given by the
High Court for disbelieving the oral dying declaration was
tha't it was not mentioned by PW 1 either in his FIR or in
his statement recorded u/s. 161 of Cr.P.C. [Para 16] [6028-C]
H
STATE OF U.P. v. KRISHNA MASTER & ORS.
575
6.5 Six brutal and gruesome murders had taken place
A
wherein fire arms were used. The hard reality of life is that
the persons who lost their kith and kin in horrific incident
are likely to suffer great shock and, therefore, law would
not expect them to mention minutest details either in the
FIR or statements u/s. 161. The question before the Court
B
is whether the assertion made by PW 1 that soon after
the incident he had gone to the place where his injured
brother was lying and on enquiry by him, his brother had
told him that the respondents were his assailants,
inspires confidence of the Court. Reading the evidence c
of the witness as a whole, it has ring of truth in it. There
is nothing improbable if a brother approaches his injured
brother and tries to know from him as to how he had
received the injuries nor is it improbable that on an
enquiry being made the injured brother would not give
0
reply/information sought from him. The assertion by
PW 1 that after the incident was over he went near his
injured brother and tried to know as to who were his
assailants, whereupon his injured brother replied that the
respondents had caused injuries to him, could not be
effectively challenged during cross-examination of the
E
witness nor could it be brought on record that because
of the nature of the injuries received by 'B' he would not
have survived even for few minutes and must have died
immediately on the receipt of the injuries. [Para 16] [602D-H; 603-A-B]
F
7.1 The High Court acquitted the respondents who
were charged for commission of six murders in a casual
and slipshod manner. The approach of the High Court in
appreciating the evidence is not only contrary to the well
G
settled principles of appreciation of evidence but quite
contrary to the ground realities of life. The High Court
recorded reasons for acquittal of the respondents which
are not borne out from the record and are quite contrary
to the evidences adduced by the reliable eye-witnesses.
H ·
576
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(20\1 OJ 9 S.C.R.
A The High Court was not justified in upsetting the well
reasoned conviction of the respondents recorded by the
trial court which after observing demenour of the eyewitnesses had placed reliance on their testimony. The
High Court did not take into consideration the full text of
B the evidence adduced by the witnesses and picked up
sentences here and there from the testimony of the
witnesses. [Para 17] [603-C-F]
7.2 There is no manner of doubt that killing six
persons and wiping out almost the whole family on flimsy
C ground of honour saving of the family would fall within
the rarest of rare case and, therefore, the trial court was
perfectly justified in imposing capital punishment on the
respondents. However, the incident had roughly taken
place before 20 years, i.e., on August 10/11, 1991. The
D High Court had acquitted the respondents by judgment
dated April 12, 2002. After April 12, 2002 till this date,
nothing adverse against any of the respondents is
reported to this Court. To sentence the respondents to
death after their acquittal in the year 2002 would not be
E justified on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case. [Para 19] [604-B-D]
7.3 The judgment passed by the High Court,
acquitting the respondents of the offences punishable u/
F s. 302/34 IPC is set aside. The judgment of the trial court
convicting each of the respondents u/s. 302/34 IPC is
restored. Each respondent is sentenced to RI for life and
fine of Rs.25,000/- each. Out of the amount of fine, if paid,
a sum of Rs.50,000/- be paid to PW2, as compensation
G in view of the provisions of s. 357 Cr.P.C. [Para 20] [604E-H]
Case Law Refence:
AIR 1988 SC 1998
Referred to.
Para 10
H
'
STATE OF!LJ.P. v. KRISHNA MASTER & ORS.
577
AIR 2003 SC 4140
Referred to.
Para 15
A
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1180 of 2004.
From the Judgment & Order dated 12.04.2002 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 574
B
of 2001.
Ratnakar Dass, Shekhar Raj Sharma, Chandra Prakash
Pandey for the Appellant.
lmtiaz Ahmed, Naghma lmtiaz (for Enquity Lex Associates) C
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
J.M. PANCHAL, J. 1. The State of Uttar Pradesh has D
questioned legality of judgment dated April 12, 2002 rendered
by Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No.574 of 2001
by which judgment dated February 20, 2001 passed· by the
learned Special Judge (EC Act)/Additional District Judge,
Farrukhabad in Sessions Trial No.17 of 1992 convicting the
E
three respondents herein under Section 302 IPC and
sentencing each of them to death with fine of Rs.10,000/- in
default RI for two years for commission of murder of six persons
is reversed and they are acquitted.
2. The facts emerging from the record of the case are as
F
under:
The incident in question took place on August 10/11, 1991.
The first informant is one Jhabbulal. He, as well as the
respondents, are residents of Village Lakhanpur, District, G
Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh. About one year before the date
of incident, Sontara, daughter of the respondent No.1 had
eloped with Amar Singh, son of Jhabbulal. On one day, Amar
Singh was spotted in the village and on learning that Amar
Singh was back in village, the respondents had made an
H
578
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 9 S.C.R.
A attempt to find him out to assault him and to take revenge.
However, Ramwati, wife of Guljari, had learnt about the plans
of respondents. She was neighbour of Jhabbulal. Therefore, she
had given prior intimation to Amar Singh about the ill designs
of respondents to assault him. Thereupon Amar Singh had left
B the village and this is how his life was saved. Later on, the
respondents had learnt that because of the intimation given by
Ramwati, Amar Singh had left the village and he could not be
targeted. Since then, the respondents were bearing a grudge
against Ramwati. It may be mentioned that after 3-4 days
Sontara and Amar Singh had returned to the village. It is the
c prosecution case that at that time, Guljari Lal, husband of
Ramwati had suggested the Respondent No. 1, in presence
of first informant Jhabbulal to get his daughter married to the
son of Jhabbulal. Thereupon, respondent No.1 had taken
0 exception and told Guljari Lal not to play with the honour of his
family. Because of the suggestion made by Guljari Lal, the
respondent No.1 was highly agitated and had animus against
Guljari Lal and first informant. Jhabbulal.
Some 10 to 15 days prior to the date of incident, Sontara
E had again eloped with Amar Singh. Due to this reason the
respondents had become restive and uneasy with the family of
Jhabbu Lal and his neighbour Gulzari Lal. The respondent No.1,
Sri Krishna Master had gone to meet Jhabbulal and told
Jhabbulal that Sontara must come back to him by Sunday
F failing which no one in the world would be able to save him and
family of Guljari. Because of the threat given by respondent
No.1, Jhabbulal had gone to the residence of his relatives in
search of his son ang daughter of the respondent No.1, but he
was unable to trace the missing boy and the girl.
G
H
3. On August 10, 1991, Ram Sewak, announced while
sitting on Chabutra of Ram Sewak that, at all costs, the girl
Sontara should come back. Otherwise, no one would be kept
alive even for the name sake. Sontara did not come back to
the village. In the midnight of August 10/11, 1991, at about 12
STATE OF U.P. v. KRISHNA MASTER & ORS.
579
[J.M. PANCHAL, J.]
hours, the respondent No.1, i.e., Shrikrishna, the respondent
A
No.2 Ram Sewak and the respondent No.3 Kishori carrying
country made pistols in their hands entered the house of
Guljarilal by jumping the southern wall of the house. After
entering into the house of Guljari, the respondents started firing
shots indiscriminately. Because of the gun shots, Guljari,
B
Ramwati, wife of Guljari, Rakesh, Umesh and Dharmendra sons
of Guljarilal, were injured. PW2 (Madan Lal) who was sleeping
at the place of incident, got up after hearing gun shots and hid
himself under the cot. He witnessed the whole incident from
there. First Informant Jhabbulal and his wife Lilawati, on seeing
C
this ghastly incident, left their house and while making hue and
cry entered the house of Khemkaran. The respondents after
killing Guljari and his family made search for the complainant
and his family members but they did not find them present in
the house. At that very time, Baburam, brother of the first 0
informant, who had entered his shop out of fear, was also
dragged out by the respondents from the shop and shot dead.
After resorting to indiscriminate firing, the respondents left the
village and went towards the south by making two fires in the
air.
E
At the time of incident, the respondents were carrying
firearms and, therefore, no one dared to go near them. In the
incident, Umesh and Oharmendra who had received injuries
were removed to hospital but later on they also succumbed to
their injuries. The written report relating to the incident was got
F
scribed by Jhabbulal through a person named Radhey Shyam
and it was submitted at the police station at about 3.30 a.m.
on 11.8.1991. The Investigating Officer, Mr. Gajraj Singh
recorded statements of those who were found to be conversant
with the facts of the case. During the course of investigation,
G
he took into possession Ban (the thread by which cot is
woven), bed sheets etc. and prepared a memo. He also picked
up 315 bore bullet lying near the dead body of Rakesh. Similarly,
bullets of 315 bore lying near the cot on which Oharmendra and
Umesh slept were also seized. He inspected the place of H
580
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2010] 9 S.C.R.
A incident and prepared the sketch. The incriminating articles
seized were sent to forensic science laboratory for analysis. He
held inquest on the dead bodies and made arrangements for
sending the dead body of four persons to hospital for post
mortem examination. On completion of investigation, the three
8 respondents were charged sheeted in the court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad for commission of offences
punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. In due course,
the case was committed to Sessions Court for trial.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge to whom the case
C was made over for trial framed charges against the respondents
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code 1860. The charge was read over and explained to them.
However, the respondents denied the same and claimed to be
tried. The prosecution, therefore, in all, examined nine
D witnesses including two eye-witnesses and produced
documents to prove its case. After the recording of evidence
of prosecution witnesses was over, the respondents were
explained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the
circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the
E witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In their further
statements, case of each of the respondent was that he was
falsely implicated in the case and, therefore, should be
acquitted.
F
The learned Judge of the Trial Court discussed the
evidence of the witnesses in great detail and found that the
evidence of the two eye-witnesses was trustworthy, cogent,
consistent and reliable. On the b~sis of testimony of the two
G eye-witnesses, the Trial Court by judgment dated February 20,
2001 convicted each of the respondents under Section 302
read with Section 34 IPC. The respondents were thereafter
heard by the learned Judge regarding sentence to be imposed
on them for commission of offences punishable under Section
302 read with Section 34 IPC. After hearing the respondents,
H
STATE OF U.P. v. KRISHNA MASTER & ORS.
581
[J.M. PANCHAL, J.]
the learned Judge awarded capital punishment to each of the A
three respondents and fine of Rs.10,000/- in default RI for two
years. A direction was given not to execute capital punishment
until the same was confirmed by the High Court. It was also
directed that the amount of fine paid by the respondents, be
given to Madan Lal who was PW2 and son of deceased Guljari
B
as compensation. The learned Additional District Judge,
Farrukhabad under a reference sent the documents to the High
Court for confirmation of the capital punishment imposed on the
respondents.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents preferred Criminal C
Appeal No.574 of 2001. The reference made by the trial court
for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to the
respondents, was heard along with the appeal filed by the
respondents. The High Court by the impugned judgment has
acquitted the respondents and rejected the reference made by D
the trial court, for confirmation of the death sentence, giving rise
to the instant appeal.
5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties
at length and in great detail. This Court has also considered
E
the documents forming part of the record.
6. The fact that each of the six deceased had died
homicidal death is not disputed before this Court. The said fact
was also not disputed by any of the respondents before the High
Court or the trial court. From the evidence of two eye-witnesses
F
as well as that of Dr. S.K. Gupta, PW4, who had conducted
autopsy on the dead body of six deceased persons and on
perusal of their respective post-mortem notes, there is no
manner of doubt that the six deceased persons had died
homicidal death on account of firearm injuries. The said finding G
recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court,
being emine~Uy just, is hereby upheld.
7. The time of occurrence is also not disputed by the
learned counsel of the respondents. It is admitted before this
H
582
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2010] 9 S.C.R.
A Court that all the murders were committed in the night of August
10, 1991. However, it was maintained by the learned counsel
for the respondents that none of the respondents were
assailants and, therefore, acquittal of the respondents recorded
by the High Court should not be lightly interfered with by this
B Court.
8. Before appreciating evidence of the witnesses
examined in the case, it would be instructive to refer to the
criteria for appreciation of oral evidence. While appreciating
the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the
C evidence of witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of
truth. Once that impression is found, it is undoubtedly necessary
for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly
keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities
pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to
D find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence
and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken
as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial
matters not touching the core of the case, hyper-technical
approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there
E from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error
committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of
the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence
as a whole. If the court before whom the witness gives evidence
had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor
F of the evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which
tiad not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the
appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court and unless the
reasons are weighty and formidable, it would not be proper for
the appellate court to reject the evidence on the ground of
G variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Minor
omissions in the police statements are never considered to be
fatal. The statements given by the witnesses before the Police
are meant to be brief statements and could not take place of
evidence in the court. Small/trivial omissions would not justify
H a finding by court that the witnesses concerned are liars. The
STATE OF U.P. v. KRISHNA MASTER & ORS.
583
[J.M. PANCHAL, J.]
prosecution evidence may suffer"from' inconsistencies here and
A
discrepancies there, but that is a short-coming from which no
criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether those
inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to
insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence
may be justified in seeking advantage of incongruities obtaining
B
in the evidence. In the latter, however, no such benefit may be
available to it. In the deposition of witnesses, there are always
normal discrepancies, howsoever, honest and truthful they may
be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of
observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due c
to mental disposition, shock and horror at the time of
occurrence and threat to the life. It is not unoften that
improvements in earlier version are made at the trial in order
to give a boost to the prosecution case albeit foolishly.
Therefore, it is the duty of the Court to separate falsehood from
0
the truth. In sifting the evidence, the Court has to attempt to
separate the chaff from the grains in every case and this
attempJ cannot be abandoned on the ground that the case is
baffling unless the evidence is really so confusing or conflicting
that the process cannot reasonably be carried out.