In the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore

Sessions Case no. 48/95

State by Kadugodi Police………………………………………………..Complainant

v.

Chinnaswamy and others………………………………………….…….Accused

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF

1.1. Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1955 SC 217

“Now it may be possible to take views of this statement but there are two important factors in every
criminal trial that weigh heavily in favour of an accused person: one is that the accused is entitled to
the benefit of every reasonable doubt and the other, an off-shoot of the same principle, that when an
accused person offers a reasonable explanation of his conduct, then, even though he cannot prove his
assertions, they should ordinarily be accepted unless the circumstances indicate that they are false.”
(para 11)

1.2 Kali Ram v. State of HP, AIR 1973 SC 2773

“One of the cardinal principles which has always to be kept in view in our system of administration of
justice for criminal cases is that a person arraigned as an accused is presumed to be innocent unless
that presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by production of evidence as may show him to be
guilty of the offence with which he is charged. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused is upon
the prosecution and unless it relieves itself of that burden, the Courts cannot record a finding of the
guilt of the accused.” (paras 24-25)

1.3 State of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh, AIR 1975 SC 258

“The circumstances of this case undoubtedly create suspicion against the accused. Suspicion, by itself,
however strong it may be, is not sufficient to take the place of proof and warrant a finding of guilt of
the accused… the onus is upon the prosecution to prove the different ingredients of the offence and
unless it discharges that onus, the prosecution cannot succeed…” (para 17)

1.4 State v. V.C. Shukla, AIR 1980 SC 1382; State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, AIR 2002 SC 620
“It is the requirement for the Prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.”
 2. UNRELIABILITY OF THE WITNESS TESTIMONY

2.1 INTERESTED WITNESSES

2.1.1. Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 472
“The term ‘interested’ postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing
that the accused person is somehow or other convicted because he had some animus towards the
accused.” (para 11)

2.1.2. State of Karnataka v. Sheik Khader, 2000 Cr LJ 430 (Kar)

“The testimony of an interested witness must be viewed with a high degree of caution and the court
must also look for independent corroboration.” (para 11)

2.1.3. Ram Ashrit v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 942

“When all the material witnesses were either related to or otherwise interested in the prosecution, their
testimony had to pass the test of close and severe scrutiny before their testimony could be safely acted
upon. In the absence of corroboration in all material particulars, it was extremely hazardous to convict
the accused on the basis of the testimony of these highly interested, inimical and partisan witnesses,
particularly when it bristles with improbable versions and material infirmities.” (paras 12, 28)

2.1.4. Harpal Singh v. Devinder Singh, AIR 1997 SC 2914

“…it is a sound rule in the appreciation of evidence that if the testimony of such a [partisan] witness is
to be used as the sole basis of the conviction it should be of such a caliber as to be regarded as wholly
reliable. The blemish attached to such eye witness as a partisan witness stands in the way of his
evidence becoming wholly reliable and hence without adequate reassurance from other circumstances
or materials it may not be safe to take the uncorroborated evidence of such a witness as the sole
basis…” (para 10)

2.1.5. State of Rajasthan v. Chandu, JT 2002 (10) SC 427

“[Thus] the rule that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the interested eye witness is
subject to the limitation that the testimony of an interested witness is trustworthy and consistent and
the court finds it safe to fully rely on the deposition of such a witness in regard to the nature of the
occurrence and the involvement of the accused.”

2.1.6. Hari Obula Reddi v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1981(3) SCC 675 and Bijoy Singh v. State of
Bihar 2002(9) SCC 147
Where the witness has a motive to falsely implicate the accused, his testimony should have
corroboration in regard to material particulars before it is accepted. [HISTORY OF ENMITY]

2.1.7. Gurdial Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1994 SC 1072

“Where it is established that there was hostility between the two families and to some extent the same
is the case of the prosecution. The evidence of cannot be accepted on its face value.” (para 4)
[HISTORY OF ENMITY]

2.1.8. Dharam Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1993 SC 319

“Admittedly there was enmity between the accused and the deceased and witnesses. Therefore their
evidence has to be scrutinized with great care and caution.” (paras 6-8) [HISTORY OF ENMITY]

2.2. COPY BOOK EVIDENCE

2.2.1. Dharam Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1993 SC 319; 1993 Supp(3) SCC 532
“However, as noted above the statement of each witness is verbatim the same as that of others.
Contradictions and omissions are the same. Narrations and sequence of events are meticulously in the
same order. Therefore we think it is not safe to place reliance on the evidence of these witnesses.”
(para 8)

2.3. OMISSIONS AND CONTRADICTIONS

2.3.1. Narayan v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 8 SCC 457
“When the version given by the witness in court is different in material particulars from that disclosed
in his earlier statements, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful…In order to ascertain whether
the discrepancy pointed out was minor or not or the same amounted to a contradiction, regard is
required to be had to the circumstances of the case by keeping in view the social status of the witness
and the environment in which such witness was making the statement…Material discrepancies are
those which are not normal, and are not expected of a normal person.” (para 42)

3. WEAKNESSES IN EVIDENCE

3.1. EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNTS - IDENTIFICATION

3.1.1. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Noorie, AIR 1996 SC 3073
“In assessing the value of the evidence of an eye-witness the two principle considerations are: (1)
whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe in his presence at the scene of the
occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for him to witness the fact deposed by him
and (2) whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in his evidence.” (para 7)

3.2. HOSTILE PANCHA WITNESS

3.2.1. Jitendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2003 SC 4236
“In this case, the panchas have turned hostile so the panchanama is nothing but a document written by
the concerned police officer.” (para 6)

3.2.2. Smt. Savakka v. State of Karnataka, 2002 (4) Kar LJ 416

“Where spot mahazar witnesses turned hostile and failed to support the case of the prosecution it was
held that important links of evidence had not been established and this was one of the factors to be
taken into account for the acquittal of the accused.” (paras 18, 20)

3.3. ABSENCE OF INDEPENDENT WITNESSES

3.3.1. Darya Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 328
“It is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to assist the Court in reaching a proper conclusion. In a murder
case, it is primarily for the prosecutor to decide which witnesses he should examine in order to unfold
the prosecution story. If a large number of persons have witnessed the incident it would be open to the
prosecutor to make a selection of those witnesses. But the selection must be made fairly and honestly
and not with a view to suppress the inconvenient from the witness box.” (para 11)

3.3.2. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Madan Mohan, AIR 1989 SC 1519

“The locality where the incident occurred was a thickly populated one...On hearing the commotion
several persons had come out of their houses. Even though statements of a few including one of the
medical practitioners were recorded none was called to the witness box… For the non-examination of
the other prosecution witnesses no explanation is forthcoming…Thus not a single person from the
locality has been brought before the court to unfold the actual occurrence.” (para 7)

4. UNRELIABILITY OF THE WITNESS

4.1 UNEXPLAINED INJURIES ON THE ACCUSED
4.1.1 Lakhwinder Singh and others v. State AIR 2003 SC 2577
“The next question is, in a case of this nature, whether the prosecution was bound to explain
the injuries appearing on the person of Paramjit Singh. In our view, having regard to the facts
and circumstances of this case, it was the duty of the prosecution to explain the injuries
suffered by Paramjit Singh which were 19 in number and two of them resulting in fractures.
It is not as if the prosecution did not know of these injuries and that they were manufactured
later to support the case of the defence. The facts disclose that even by the time the first
information report was finalised and before the special report was despatched, the
investigating officer had knowledge of the fact that Paramjit Singh had suffered injuries and
was admitted in a hospital for treatment. We, therefore, hold that the failure of the
prosecution to explain the injuries on Paramjit Singh leads to the inference that the
prosecution has not disclosed the true genesis and the manner of occurrence.” (Paramjit
Singh was the accused)

4.1.2 State of U.P. v. Banne @ Bajinath and others (2009) 4 SCC 271
“On careful examination of the injuries caused to the accused the High Court observed that
injuries on them (accused persons) were not superficial or minor or self-inflicted. Therefore,
the absence of any explanation by the prosecution about the injuries received by the accused
persons creates serious doubt about the credibility of the entire prosecution version.
According to the High Court, it was the bounden duty and obligation of the prosecution to
have given explanation about the injuries of the accused persons.” The Supreme Court
refused to alter the decision of the High Court.

4.1.3 Shree Vijayakumar v. State (2005) 10 SCC 737

“The fact that the accused also suffered injuries which are not negligible shows that there
would have been some scuffle and exchange of blows, but the details thereof are not
forthcoming. Moreover, there are some circumstances casting a doubt on the prosecution
version of A1 pouring petrol on the deceased by breaking the bottle in an unusual manner by
hitting it on the head of the deceased. The broken pieces of glass bottle are supposed to have
been recovered by the Sub-Inspector of Police--PW13 at the spot but he did not depose as to
how he identified it as the bottle used in the course of attack. It is not his case that any
witness had pointed out the same. Above all, the prosecution version that the liquid which
came out of the bottle was petrol, cannot be relied upon for more than one reason.”

4.2 INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY AND POST-MORTEM REPORT

4.2.1 Ram Swarup v. State (2004) 13 SCC 134
“PW-8, Madan Lal, the first informant also does not appear to us to be a reliable witness. The
version disclosed by him as a witness is quite different from what he had stated in the first
information report lodged by him as also in his statement recorded in the course of
investigation. The trial court has considered his evidence in detail and pointed out the
inconsistencies in his evidence. It has also found that the medical evidence does not
corroborate his version because if his version is to be believed, the deceased would have
received many more injuries and on different parts of the body. In fact on the basis of the
material on record it appears probable that this witness did not witness the occurrence and
came out of his house after he heard about the occurrence. He falsely pretended to be an eye
witness.” In the result this appeal is allowed and the appellants are acquitted of all the
charges leveled against them.

4.3 ACCUSED NOT KNOWN TO THE WITNESS

4.3.1 Amitsingh Bhikamsingh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra 2007 Cri LJ 1168
“In the present case, P.W.1, 2 and 3 in their depositions admitted that they had not been
knowing the accused from before and despite so, no test identification parade was held. The
accused persons having been identified for the first time in the court, it is difficult for any
court to rely upon the same and that too after such a long time.
As indicated hereinbefore, appellants were not known to the police officers; they were not
involved in any other case. In fact, so far as the Hemu is concerned, no case at the relevant
time was pending against him. Only because Sattey allegedly called them by their names,
which appears to be wholly unlikely, they could not have been identified particularly in view
of the fact that the incident had taken place in an isolated area and that too on a dark night.”

Submitted By:
Vishav Gupta (1778)