{"id":1608,"date":"2011-09-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-19-september-2011"},"modified":"2017-04-26T22:45:21","modified_gmt":"2017-04-26T17:15:21","slug":"rakesh-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-19-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-19-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Rakesh & Anr vs State Of M.P on 19 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rakesh & Anr vs State Of M.P on 19 September, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: . B Chauhan<\/div>\n
Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan<\/div>\n
                                                                                    REPORTABLE\n\n\n\n\n                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 339 of 2008\n\n\n\n\n\nRakesh & Another                                                          ...Appellants\n\n\n                                           Versus\n\n\n\n\nState of Madhya Pradesh                                                     ...Respondent\n\n\n\n\n\n                                  J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.      This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and <\/p>\n
order   dated   15.12.2006   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   at <\/p>\n
Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal Nos. 518 and 890 of 1997.\n<\/p>\n
2.      Facts as explained by the prosecution have been that:\n<\/p>\n
A.         On   5.3.1996,   on   the   day   of   `Holi’   at   around   11.30   a.m.,   one <\/p>\n
Kailash   @   Killu   was   assaulted   by   the   appellants   alongwith   another <\/p>\n
accused   in   front   of   the   house   of   one   Rama   Tailor.     Anil   (PW.11), <\/p>\n
nephew of the deceased, who had been following Kailash (deceased), <\/p>\n
raised   an   alarm   and   the   assailants   were   caught   at   the   spot.     Various <\/p>\n
persons gathered at the place of occurrence but the assailants managed <\/p>\n
to flee.  The injured Kailash was taken to the hospital but succumbed to <\/p>\n
his injuries.   In view of the above, an FIR was lodged under Section <\/p>\n
302   of   Indian   Penal   Code,   1860   (hereinafter   called   as   `IPC’)   and <\/p>\n
Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, within one hour of the incident at <\/p>\n
12.30 p.m., wherein both the appellants and other accused were named.\n<\/p>\n
In   the   FIR   it   was   also   stated   that   two   policemen,   namely,   Ramdas <\/p>\n
Havaldar   and  Pannalal  Sainik  came at   the   scene   and  got  the  accused <\/p>\n
persons   released   from   the   mob   and,   thus,   they   succeeded   in   running <\/p>\n
away.\n<\/p>\n
B.             Dr.   R.K.   Singhvi   (PW.8),   conducted   the   post-mortem   on   the <\/p>\n
body of the deceased on the same day.  In his opinion, there were three <\/p>\n
incised wounds found   on his body, one on the neck, one on the chest <\/p>\n
and another in the abdomen. All the injuries had been caused by sharp <\/p>\n
edged weapons and Kailash had died within  three to six hours prior to <\/p>\n
conducting the post-mortem examination.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
C.     During the course of investigation, the appellants were arrested <\/p>\n
and the weapons used in the offence were recovered on their disclosure <\/p>\n
statements.  After concluding the investigation, chargesheet was filed.\n<\/p>\n
D.     The   case   was   committed   for   Sessions   trial.     The   prosecution <\/p>\n
examined a large number of witnesses in support of its case. One Halle <\/p>\n
(DW.1) was examined in defence and after conclusion of the trial, all <\/p>\n
the   three   accused   were   convicted   for   the   offence   punishable   under <\/p>\n
Section   302   IPC   vide   judgment   and   order   dated   21.2.1997   and   were <\/p>\n
awarded sentence  of rigorous imprisonment  for life and a fine of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
2,000\/- each, in default thereof, to serve  further sentence of one year.\n<\/p>\n
E.     Being   aggrieved,   all   the   three   accused\/convicts   preferred   two <\/p>\n
appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos. 518 & 890 of 1997 before the High <\/p>\n
Court of Judicature at Jabalpur, which were decided by judgment and <\/p>\n
order dated 10.2.2005 in absence of their counsel.\n<\/p>\n
F.     Being   aggrieved,   the   present   two   appellants   preferred   criminal <\/p>\n
appeals before this Court i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1463-64 of 2005 <\/p>\n
which were allowed vide judgment and order dated 20.7.2006 and this <\/p>\n
Court after setting aside the judgment and order dated 10.2.2005 of the <\/p>\n
                                                                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur, remanded the appeals to be heard <\/p>\n
by the High Court afresh.\n<\/p>\n
G.      In pursuance of the said judgment and order of this Court dated <\/p>\n
20.7.2006,   the   appeals   have   been   heard   afresh   and   dismissed   vide <\/p>\n
judgment and order dated 15.12.2006 by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
                 Hence, this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
3.      Before proceeding with the case on merit, it may be pertinent to <\/p>\n
mention   here   that   so   far   as   the   case   of   the   appellant   Rakesh   is <\/p>\n
concerned, he had already served the sentence of more than 14 years <\/p>\n
and has been granted premature release by the State.  Appellant Rajesh <\/p>\n
has   served   about   7   -1\/2   years   and   is   still   in   jail.     The   third   person <\/p>\n
Dinesh did not prefer any appeal so we are not concerned with him so <\/p>\n
far as this appeal is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
4.      Shri   Siddharth   Aggarwal,   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the <\/p>\n
appellants,   has   submitted   that   the   Trial   Court   had   placed   very   heavy <\/p>\n
reliance upon the alleged eye-witnesses Khemchand (PW.10) and Anil <\/p>\n
(PW.11)   who,   in   fact,   could   not   be   the   eye-witnesses   at   all.   The <\/p>\n
deposition of other witnesses examined by the prosecution, falsify the <\/p>\n
prosecution’s case in entirety. There have been material inconsistencies <\/p>\n
                                                                                            4<\/span><\/p>\n
in the depositions of Khemchand (PW.10) and Anil (PW.11), and  their <\/p>\n
entire evidence has to be discredited.  The High Court after considering <\/p>\n
the   circumstances,   did   not   find   the   evidence   of  Khemchand   (PW.10) <\/p>\n
trustworthy,   however,   failed   to   appreciate   that   the   evidence   of   Anil <\/p>\n
(PW.11) was also liable to be treated similarly.  The ocular evidence is <\/p>\n
contradictory  to the medical  evidence  as the incident had occurred at <\/p>\n
11.30   a.m.,   FIR     had   been   lodged   at   12.30   p.m.   The   post-mortem <\/p>\n
examination was conducted at 1.00 p.m. on the same day i.e. 5.3.1996.\n<\/p>\n
The Doctor opined that Kailash @ Killu had died within 3 to 6 hours <\/p>\n
before the post-mortem examination. Anil (PW.11) relied upon by the <\/p>\n
High   Court,   is   closely   related   to   the   deceased   Kailash   @   Killu   and <\/p>\n
none   of   the   independent   witnesses   examined   by   the   prosecution <\/p>\n
supported its case to the extent that Anil (PW.11) could be present on <\/p>\n
the place of occurrence at the relevant time. Thus, the appeal deserves <\/p>\n
to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
5.      Per contra, Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, learned counsel appearing <\/p>\n
for the State, has vehemently opposed the appeal contending that there <\/p>\n
is   no   rule   of  law   prohibiting   reliance   upon   the   evidence   of  the   close <\/p>\n
relatives   of   the   victims,   however,   such   evidence   has   to   be   carefully <\/p>\n
scrutinised. The medical evidence may not be conclusive regarding the <\/p>\n
                                                                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
time of death as the physical condition of a body after death depends <\/p>\n
upon various factors i.e. age, geographical and climatic  conditions of <\/p>\n
the place of occurrence etc.  The facts and circumstances of the case do <\/p>\n
not   warrant   interference   with   the   concurrent   findings   of   the   facts <\/p>\n
recorded by the courts below. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be <\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
6.           We have considered the rival submissions made  by the learned <\/p>\n
counsel for the parties and perused the record.\n<\/p>\n
7.           According to the prosecution case, Rakesh hit on the right side of <\/p>\n
the neck with knife, Rajesh on the right portion of the chest by gupti <\/p>\n
and   Dinesh   hit   by   `Katarna’   (Axe   having   long   wooden   handle   of   42 <\/p>\n
inches)   on   the   right   portion   of   the   stomach   of   Kailash   @   Killu, <\/p>\n
deceased.     This   evidence   stands   duly   supported   by   the   medical <\/p>\n
evidence as Dr. R.K. Singhvi (PW.8), on conducting the post-mortem <\/p>\n
examination found the following injuries on his person:\n<\/p>\n
       i)        Incised wound on the right portion of right clerical bone of <\/p>\n
       1.5x2x5 cms with regular edges. Faciea muscle, blood vessel lungs <\/p>\n
       was torn, blood was deposited in the chest. <\/p>\n
                                                                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      ii)     Incised wound on the right chest on third inter-coster space <\/p>\n
      of  5   cm  x   1.5   cm   x   5   cm.   Faciea   muscle   and   blood   vessels   had <\/p>\n
      been cut.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
      iii)    Incised wound in the right chest on ninth intercoster space of <\/p>\n
      4 cms x 2 cm x 4 cms. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                In the opinion of Doctor Singhvi, all the injuries appeared <\/p>\n
to have  been caused within 3 to 6 hours by sharp edged weapons prior <\/p>\n
to the post-mortem examination.\n<\/p>\n
8.      All   the   weapons   used   in   the   crime   had   been   recovered   in   the <\/p>\n
disclosure statements made by the appellants and other accused.  In the <\/p>\n
opinion of Dr. R.K. Singhvi (PW.8), injuries nos.1, 2 and 3 could be <\/p>\n
caused by the weapons used in the offence.  The question does arise as <\/p>\n
to   whether   there   is   inconsistency\/contradiction   in   the   medical   and <\/p>\n
ocular   evidence.     The   evidence   on   record   clearly   reveal   that   injuries <\/p>\n
had been caused to Kailash @ Killu, deceased, on his neck, chest and <\/p>\n
right portion of the stomach.\n<\/p>\n
9.      It   is   a   settled   legal   proposition   that   the   ocular   evidence   would <\/p>\n
have   primacy   unless   it   is   established   that   oral   evidence   is   totally <\/p>\n
irreconcilable   with   the   medical   evidence.     More   so,   the   ocular <\/p>\n
testimony   of   a   witness   has   a   greater   evidentiary   value   vis-a`-vis <\/p>\n
                                                                                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony <\/p>\n
improbable,   that   becomes   a   relevant   factor   in   the   process   of   the <\/p>\n
evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes so <\/p>\n
far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence if <\/p>\n
proved, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved.   (Vide:  State of U.P.\n<\/p>\n
v.   Hari   Chand,  (2009)   13   SCC   542;  Abdul   Sayeed   v.   State   of <\/p>\n
Madhya   Pradesh,  (2010)   10   SCC   259;   and  Bhajan   Singh  @ <\/p>\n
Harbhajan Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 421).\n<\/p>\n
10.     So far as the opinion of the doctor that death had occurred within <\/p>\n
3 to 6 hours prior to post-mortem examination, does not mean that Dr. <\/p>\n
R.K. Singhvi (PW.8) was able to fix any exact time of death.  The issue <\/p>\n
raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is no more res integra.\n<\/p>\n
                In Mangu Khan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR<\/a> 2005 <\/p>\n
SC 1912, this Court examined a similar issue wherein the post-mortem <\/p>\n
report mentioned that the death had occurred within 24 hours prior to <\/p>\n
post-mortem examination. In that case, such an opinion did not match <\/p>\n
with the prosecution case.   This Court examined the issue elaborately <\/p>\n
and held that physical condition of the body after death would depend <\/p>\n
on   a   large   number   of   circumstances\/factors   and   nothing   can   be   said <\/p>\n
with   certainty.     In   determining   the   issue,   various   factors   such   as   age <\/p>\n
                                                                                       8<\/span><\/p>\n
and   health   condition   of   the   deceased,   climatic   and   atmospheric <\/p>\n
conditions of the place of occurrence and the conditions under which <\/p>\n
the body is  preserved, are required to be considered. There has been no <\/p>\n
cross-examination   of   the   doctor   on   the   issue   as   to   elicit   any   of   the <\/p>\n
material   fact   on   which   a   possible   argument   could   be   based     in   this <\/p>\n
regard.   The acceptable  ocular evidence cannot be dislodged on such <\/p>\n
hypothetical basis for which no proper grounds were made.\n<\/p>\n
11.     In  Baso Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar,  AIR<\/a> 2007 SC 1019, <\/p>\n
while   considering   a   similar   issue,   this   Court   held   that   exact   time   of <\/p>\n
death cannot be established scientifically and precisely.\n<\/p>\n
        Halle   (DW.1),   examined   by   the   appellants   in   their   defence, <\/p>\n
deposed that incident occurred at 11.00 a.m. which is consistent with <\/p>\n
the   prosecution   case.   Thus,   in   view   of   the   above,   the   submission   so <\/p>\n
advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, is not tenable and <\/p>\n
thus,   does   not   tilt   the   balance   in   favour   of   the   appellants.     The <\/p>\n
argument does not require any further consideration.\n<\/p>\n
12.     This Court in  Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar,<\/a>(1996) 1 SCC <\/p>\n
614, defined  `interested witness’ as:\n<\/p>\n
            “A close relative who is a natural witness cannot  <\/p>\n
            be   regarded   as   an   interested   witness.   The   term  <\/p>\n
                                                                                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
            `interested’   postulates  that the  witness  must  have  <\/p>\n
            some   direct   interest   in   having   the   accused  <\/p>\n
            somehow or the other convicted for some animus  <\/p>\n
            or for some other reason.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
13.     Evidence   of   related   witness   can   be   relied   upon   provided   it   is <\/p>\n
trustworthy.     Mere   relationship   does   not   disqualify   a   witness.\n<\/p>\n
Witnesses who are related to the victim are as competent to depose the <\/p>\n
facts   as   any   other   witness.   Such   evidence   is   required   to   be   carefully <\/p>\n
scrutinised   and   appreciated   before   reaching   to   a   conclusion   on   the <\/p>\n
conviction of the accused in a given case. (See:  Himanshu  @ Chintu <\/p>\n
v.   State  (NCT   of   Delhi),<\/a>    (2011)   2   SCC   36;   and  Bhajan   Singh  @ <\/p>\n
Harbhajan Singh & Ors. (supra).\n<\/p>\n
14.     Anil   (PW.11),   undoubtedly,   has   been   closely   related   to   the <\/p>\n
victim   being   his   nephew.     His   evidence   requires   a   very   careful   and <\/p>\n
close scrutiny in the light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions.\n<\/p>\n
15.     The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the <\/p>\n
appellants   has   been   that   the   statements   of   Khemchand   (PW.10)   and <\/p>\n
Anil (PW.11) have been mutually destructive, thus both are liable to be <\/p>\n
discarded   altogether.   The   High   Court   has   disbelieved   Khemchand <\/p>\n
(PW.10) to the extent that he was present at the time of incident and <\/p>\n
                                                                                       1<\/span><\/p>\n
thus, could not be an eye-witness.  Deposition of Anil (PW.11) clearly <\/p>\n
reveals   that   incident   occurred   at   10.30   a.m.   in   front   of   the   house   of <\/p>\n
Rama   Tailor   and   the   appellants   alongwith   Dinesh   caused   injuries   to <\/p>\n
Kailash (deceased) with weapons such as knife, gupti and `katarna’ on <\/p>\n
the neck, chest and stomach.  At the time of incident, Anil (PW.11) had <\/p>\n
been   at   a   short   distance   from   the   victim.     Ishwar   Nayak   (PW.6), <\/p>\n
Dharmendra  (PW.12)   and other  persons  had also  gathered   there.     He <\/p>\n
also   deposed   about   the   motive   that   Rakesh,   accused,   wanted   utensils <\/p>\n
from Kailash (deceased), who refused to oblige the accused.   Rakesh, <\/p>\n
accused   had   threatened   Kailash   to  face   dire   consequences.     In  cross-\n<\/p>\n
examination,   he  has   admitted   that  at  the  time   of the   incident,   Ishwar <\/p>\n
Nayak (PW.6), Dharmendra (PW.12) and Pradeep Pathak (PW.15) etc., <\/p>\n
were with him.   He denied that he reached the place of occurrence on <\/p>\n
being informed by Halle (DW.1) and further denied the suggestion that <\/p>\n
he   had   not   seen   the   quarrel   between   the   accused   persons   and   the <\/p>\n
deceased.  He gave a full account of the overt acts of the accused while <\/p>\n
causing  injuries  to Kailash.    His  evidence has  to be examined taking <\/p>\n
into   consideration   that   the   site   plan   prepared   by   the   Patwari   make   it <\/p>\n
clear that the incident occurred on a main road and the victim as well <\/p>\n
as Anil (PW.11) were on the same road.   There was no obstruction in <\/p>\n
                                                                                         1<\/span><\/p>\n
 between, thus  Anil (PW.11) could clearly view the incident.  Though, <\/p>\n
 there  has  been  some dispute  regarding  the  distance  between  the  two, <\/p>\n
 but  taking  into  consideration   the  fact   that  the  accused  had  been   very <\/p>\n
 well   known   to   the   witness   being   resident   of     the   same   village,   the <\/p>\n
 distance   becomes   immaterial   for   the   reason   that   the   witness   could <\/p>\n
 recognize   him   even   from   that   distance.     The   other   eye-witnesses, <\/p>\n
 particularly, Ishwar Nayak (PW.6), Dharmendra (PW.12) and Pradeep <\/p>\n
 Pathak   (PW.15)   did   not   support   the   case   of   the   prosecution <\/p>\n
 appropriately. Dharmendra (PW.12) stood declared hostile.  Deposition <\/p>\n
 of  Ishwar Nayak (PW.6) has corroborated the case of the prosecution <\/p>\n
 to the extent that   Anil (PW.11) was at the place of occurrence earlier <\/p>\n
 to him.  In cross-examination, he deposed as under:\n<\/p>\n
            “Half   the   boys   ran   towards   the   spot   of   incident  <\/p>\n
            immediately.   Amongst   them   was   Anil   also.     I   did  <\/p>\n
            not go with Anil.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
16. In view of the above, it is evident that incident occurred at 11.30 a.m. <\/p>\n
   Kailash, injured was taken to the hospital where he was examined by <\/p>\n
   the doctor and declared dead.   Anil (PW.11) went from hospital to <\/p>\n
   police station and lodged the FIR at 12.30 p.m. wherein all the three <\/p>\n
   accused were specifically named.   The distance of the police station <\/p>\n
   from the place of occurrence had been only 1 k.m.  The overt acts of <\/p>\n
                                                                                      1<\/span><\/p>\n
    the accused had been mentioned. The motive was also disclosed.   It <\/p>\n
    is   improbable   that   the   appellants   had   been   enroped   falsely   as <\/p>\n
    promptness   in   lodging   the   FIR   shows   that   there   was   no   time   for <\/p>\n
    manipulation.  Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the <\/p>\n
    informant with all its vivid details gives an assurance regarding truth <\/p>\n
    of its  version.  Allegations may  not be  an after-thought  or having a <\/p>\n
    colourable version of the incidents.   (See:  Kishan Singh  (dead) thr.\n<\/p>\n
    Lrs. v. Gurpal  Singh & Ors., AIR<\/a> 2010 SC 3624).\n<\/p>\n
            It does not appeal to reasons as to why the witness would falsely  <\/p>\n
enrope   the   appellants   and   other   accused   in   such   a   heinous   crime   and <\/p>\n
spare   the   real   culprits   to   go   scot-free.   In   the   FIR,   Anil   (PW.11)   has <\/p>\n
disclosed that his father Khemchand (PW.10), Ishwar Nayak (PW.6) and <\/p>\n
Dharmendra  (PW.12)   reached  the  place  of  occurrence  at  a  later  stage.\n<\/p>\n
As the parties were known to each other being the residents of the same <\/p>\n
village, the identity etc. was not in dispute.\n<\/p>\n
17.           The   Trial   Court   had   appreciated   the   evidence   on   record,   and <\/p>\n
reached the conclusion to the effect that Anil (PW.11) was a trustworthy <\/p>\n
witness   and   had   been   an   eye-witness   of   the   incident.   He   had   faced <\/p>\n
grilling  cross-examination.  However, no discrepancy  or error could be <\/p>\n
                                                                                         1<\/span><\/p>\n
shown in spite of the fact that he was nephew of  Kailash (deceased). On <\/p>\n
careful scrutiny of his deposition,  his statement was found trustworthy.\n<\/p>\n
         The court further held that even if the other witnesses on the spot <\/p>\n
 had   not   supported   the   prosecution   case,   Anil   (PW.11)   was   a   natural <\/p>\n
 witness   and   had   seen   the   incident.   The   other   circumstances <\/p>\n
 particularly,   the   statements   of   B.M.   Dubey,   Investigating   Officer <\/p>\n
 (PW.21)   and   Balram   (PW.9),     the   arrest   of   accused,   recovery   of <\/p>\n
 weapons   on   their   disclosure   statements   proved   the   prosecution   case.\n<\/p>\n
 The depositions of B.M. Dubey (PW.21) had been natural. There was <\/p>\n
 no   proof   that   the   I.O.   (PW.21)   had   any   animosity   or   any   kind   of <\/p>\n
 interest  and closeness  to the deceased. Therefore,  the question  of not <\/p>\n
 believing   the   statement   of  B.M.   Dubey,   I.O.   (PW.21)   does   not   arise.\n<\/p>\n
 The   High   Court   in   spite   of   the   fact   of   dis-believing   Khemchand <\/p>\n
 (PW.10),   found   the   prosecution   case   wholly   proved   on   the   sole <\/p>\n
 testimony of Anil (PW.11).\n<\/p>\n
 18.         There are concurrent findings of fact by the two courts below.\n<\/p>\n
 Unless   the   findings   so   recorded   are   found   to   be   perverse,   this   Court <\/p>\n
 should   not   generally   interfere.     This   “Court   cannot   embark   upon <\/p>\n
 fruitless   task   of   determining   the   issues   by   re-appreciating   the <\/p>\n
                                                                                       1<\/span><\/p>\n
evidence.”   (See :  Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam,<\/a> (2009) 13 <\/p>\n
SCC 330).\n<\/p>\n
19.             Even if there are minor discrepancies between the narrations of <\/p>\n
witnesses when they speak on details, unless such contradictions are of <\/p>\n
material   dimensions,   the   same   should   not   be   used   to   discard     the <\/p>\n
evidence in its entirety.   The trivial discrepancy ought not to obliterate <\/p>\n
the otherwise acceptable evidence.\n<\/p>\n
20.        In Leela Ram (Dead) thr. Duli Chand v. State of Haryana & <\/p>\n
Anr., (1999) 9 SCC 525, this Court observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
                   “The   Court   shall   have   to   bear   in   mind   that  <\/p>\n
                   different   witnesses   react   differently   under  <\/p>\n
                   different   situations:   whereas   some   become  <\/p>\n
                   speechless, some start wailing while some others  <\/p>\n
                   run away from the scene and yet there are some  <\/p>\n
                   who may come forward with courage, conviction  <\/p>\n
                   and belief that the wrong should be remedied. As  <\/p>\n
                   a  matter  of  fact  it  depends   upon  individuals  and  <\/p>\n
                   individuals.   There   cannot   be   any   set   pattern   or  <\/p>\n
                   uniform rule of human reaction and to discard a  <\/p>\n
                   piece   of   evidence   on   the   ground   of   his   reaction  <\/p>\n
                   not   falling   within   a   set   pattern   is   unproductive  <\/p>\n
                   and a pedantic exercise.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
21.           In view of the above, we reach the inescapable conclusion that <\/p>\n
the   courts   below   reached   the   correct   conclusion   in   accepting   the <\/p>\n
                                                                                        1<\/span><\/p>\n
prosecution case. Anil (PW.11) is a natural witness and his testimony <\/p>\n
inspired confidence and is, thus, worth acceptance.\n<\/p>\n
            The facts and circumstances of the instant case do not warrant <\/p>\n
any interference by this Court. Appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, <\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                              …………………………\n<\/p>\n
…J.\n<\/p>\n
                                              (P. SATHASIVAM)<\/p>\n
                                              …………………………\n<\/p>\n
…J.\n<\/p>\n
                                              (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)<\/p>\n
New Delhi,<\/p>\n
September 19, 2011<\/p>\n
                                                                       1<\/span><\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rakesh & Anr vs State Of M.P on 19 September, 2011 Author: . B Chauhan Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 339 of 2008 Rakesh & Another …Appellants Versus State of Madhya Pradesh …Respondent J U D G M […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1608","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRakesh & Anr vs State Of M.P on 19 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-19-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rakesh & Anr vs State Of M.P on 19 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-19-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-26T17:15:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-19-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-19-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rakesh & Anr vs State Of M.P on 19 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-26T17:15:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-19-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2989,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-19-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-19-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-19-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Rakesh & Anr vs State Of M.P on 19 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-26T17:15:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-19-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-19-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-19-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rakesh & Anr vs State Of M.P on 19 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rakesh & Anr vs State Of M.P on 19 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-19-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rakesh & Anr vs State Of M.P on 19 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-19-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-26T17:15:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-19-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-19-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rakesh & Anr vs State Of M.P on 19 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-26T17:15:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-19-september-2011"},"wordCount":2989,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-19-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-19-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-19-september-2011","name":"Rakesh & Anr vs State Of M.P on 19 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-26T17:15:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-19-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-19-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-19-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rakesh & Anr vs State Of M.P on 19 September, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1608","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1608"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1608\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1608"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1608"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1608"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}