Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 461 (GUJ)

Hussain Ishaq Masalawala v. State Of Gujarat

2025-06-16

ILESH J.VORA, SANDEEP N.BHATT

body2025
JUDGMENT : ILESH J. VORA, J. Since this matter is heard by this Bench earlier finally and kept for orders today, the same is disposed of by the following judgment. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction dated 18.06.2015 passed by the learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No.25 of 2006 for the offences under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the appellant has preferred this appeal as provided under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short). 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 03.07.2000, when the complainant – Ranchhodbhai Hamirbhai Hadiya, P.S.I., D.C.B. Police Station, Surat was on duty and during his patrolling in sensitive areas of Surat City due to announcement of shutdown by the political parties on account of massive attack by bomb and firing by the terrorists on the pilgrimages of Amarnath on 02.08.2000, he received a message from Control Room that there is a riot in Nanavat area, which is situated behind the Surat Municipal Corporation. Therefore, immediately, the complainant went, along with two vehicles, from Chauta Bazar to Nanavat area and he saw that one person was lying on road and three persons were attacking on him and out of said three, two were having knife and one was having sword. Soon after seeing the police, all the three accused were trying to escape from there towards the small street near them, however, the police personnel caught one accused out of three with knife, but two were succeeded in escaping. The person lying on the road was Kiran Maheshbhai Kakadia and upon asked by the police to said Kiran, he said that the person who caught by the police and other two persons have beaten him. The accused who has been caught by the police with knife is the present appellant. Therefore, the injured person viz., Kiran was shifted to the hospital by the police personnel in 108 ambulance, however, he succumbed to the injuries during the treatment. Therefore, a complaint is lodged by the complainant with regard to the said incident before the Chowk Bazar Police Station, Surat, which was registered as C.R.-I No. 142 of 2000 for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 324, 143, 147, 148, 149, 337 and 427 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 3. Therefore, a complaint is lodged by the complainant with regard to the said incident before the Chowk Bazar Police Station, Surat, which was registered as C.R.-I No. 142 of 2000 for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 324, 143, 147, 148, 149, 337 and 427 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 3. In pursuance of the complaint lodged by the complainant, investigating agency recorded statements of the witnesses, collected relevant evidence and drawn various Panchnamas and other relevant evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. After having found material against three accused, including present appellant, charge-sheet came to be filed against them, in the Court of learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surat. As said Court lacks jurisdiction to try the offence, it committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Surat as provided under section 209 of the Code. 4. Upon committal of the cases to the Sessions Court, Surat, learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined 22 witnesses and also produced 15 documentary evidence before the learned trial Court, more particularly described in Paras : 6 and 7 of the impugned judgment and order. 6. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the appellant - accused so as to obtain their explanation/answer as provided u/s 313 of the Code. In the further statement, the appellant - accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against him as false and further stated that he is innocent and false case has been filed against him. After hearing both the sides and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant - accused of the offences, for which he was tried, as the prosecution succeeded to prove the case. Hence, the present appeal. 7. It is noted that along with the present appellant, there were two other accused. Both those accused were acquitted by the learned trial Court from the charges levelled against them. Against it, the State has not preferred any appeal before this Court. 8.1 Learned advocate Mr. Hence, the present appeal. 7. It is noted that along with the present appellant, there were two other accused. Both those accused were acquitted by the learned trial Court from the charges levelled against them. Against it, the State has not preferred any appeal before this Court. 8.1 Learned advocate Mr. A.V. Nair for the appellant – accused has submitted that the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses by the accused and the FSL report of the collected material i.e. ‘knife’, allegedly recovered from the appellant, opining no availability of blood on the knife, have been brushed aside in toto to impose conviction on the appellant; and that even the aspect of non-corroboration of the recovered knife with the injuries of the deceased victim has been over-looked by the learned trial Court; and that the conviction of the appellant, on the basis of the similar or identical evidence qua the acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3, unsustainable, without making any material distinction in role and evidence between the acquitted and the convicted accused; and that the alleged incident had occurred on 03.08.2000 at around 12:00 – 01:00 p.m., and the discovery panchnama of the accused with recovered knife was conducted at around 17:30 to 18:30 p.m. by the investigating officer – Mr.Simpi, PSI, Chowk Bazar Police Station, the probability of appellant having been arrested / caught from a different place by the DCB Police officials and brought directly to the police station, during the riots and thereafter have been falsely arrayed him as an accused in the alleged offence, cannot be ruled out, as the appellant was the resident of Saudagarwad and employed at Roopam Showroom, which are in the nearby vicinity, wherein the alleged offence has occurred, which is within the jurisdiction of the Chowk Bazar Police Station; and that the testimonies of police witnesses at Exh.77, 62, 64, 67, 70, 82 and 83, do not inspire confidence for convicting the appellant; and that these police witnesses, except Exh.82 – deposition of Gordhanbhai Patel, have directly identified the three accused before the learned trial Court after more than ten years; and that none of the said witnesses are giving evidence on the exact place of arrest of the appellant or who had caught hold of him after chasing; and that when none of the police official was injured by the mob, no proof of any efforts having been made for giving medical aid to the victim – Kiran till ambulance came, no proof of any blood stains on the clothes of the police official or the vehicle in which the victim was initially kept and which police official had done which act and where were they present during the alleged incident, then the presence of the said police officials when the deceased victim was assaulted is highly doubtful; and that some of the police officials have even admitted that they had studied the case papers before deposing in the trial Court, rendering their testimonies unreliable; and that even the version of the police officials citing that the victim had identified the appellant before them by pointing finger and stating that these people have assaulted him is not believable, considering the number and nature of the injuries sustained by the victim, and the blood lost by him; and that the so-called dying declaration before the police officials even otherwise do not inspire any confidence sufficient to convict the appellant, as it is vague and inconclusive. 8.2 In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the following decisions. (i) 2023 INSC 829 – Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi versus State of Gujarat (ii) 2024 INSC 474 – Sasikumar versus the State (iii) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 582 – Amrik Sing versus the State of Punjab (iv) 2023 INSC 758 – Irfan @ Naka versus the State of U.P. 8.3 He has submitted that this appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted. 9.1 Learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the respondent – State has vehemently opposed this appeal. 9.1 Learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the respondent – State has vehemently opposed this appeal. She has submitted that when the police reached at the place of offence on receiving the message from the control room because of the communal riots, they have seen that one person i.e. deceased was lying on the road and three persons were beating him with sword and knife and soon after seeing the police, all the three persons ran from the place of offence, however, the police succeeded to catch the present appellant with knife but two were succeeded to run away; and that when the victim was asked about the blows, the victim has pointed out his finger towards the appellant and said that these persons have beaten him with sword and knife; and that all the police officials have supported the case of the prosecution; and that looking to the injuries shown in the postmortem report, it seems that the deceased got various injuries by deadly weapons blows; and that the present appellant himself has stated that he has given knife blows to the deceased, along with other two persons, when he was arrested from the place of offence; and that it was a communal riots in the entire city, there was a mob of Muslim community, the area where the incident has happened was the Muslim area and there is no fault of the victim for which he was beaten by the accused persons; and that the police witnesses have identified the accused – appellant; and that the depositions given by the police witnesses were almost consistent and on the same line; and that there is no major contradictions in the said depositions; and that tear gas cells were released on the mob to scatter them; and that the complainant is the police officer; and that the appellant was arrested on the spot with the weapon; and that the deceased has identified the appellant and told that the appellants and other persons have beaten him with knife and sword by pointing out finger towards the appellant; and that injuries as well as cause of death mentioned in the postmortem report support the case of the prosecution. 9.2 In support of her submissions, she has relied upon the following decisions. 9.2 In support of her submissions, she has relied upon the following decisions. (i) ( (1999) 9 SCC 525 – Leela Ram versus State of Haryana (ii) (2012) 4 SCC 722 – Govind Raju versus State (iii) (2012) 7 SCC 646 – Shyamal Ghosh versus State of West Bengal 9.3 She has submitted that this appeal may be dismissed and the conviction may be upheld. 10.1 We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. We have perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court. We have also gone through the record and proceedings as well as jail remarks. 10.2 The complainant is the police official viz., Ranchhodbhai Hamirbhai Hadiya, who was a P.S.I. at D.C.B. Police Station, Surat. He was one of the police team members, who caught the appellant – accused from the place of offence. From the complaint, it transpires that the police team has received a message from the control room regarding communal riots at Nanavat Area of Surat; therefore, they immediately rushed there; when they reached at the place of offence, they saw that one person was lying on the road and three persons were beating him; soon after seeing the police, all the three persons ran away from the place of offence; the police personnel chased them; Out of three, two were succeeded in escaping, but one was caught, who is the appellant herein; the police personnel caught the appellant and took him to the injured person lying on the road; due to various severe injuries received by the injured, the injured was groaning on the road; in such a situation, on being asked by the police to the injured about the persons who have inflicted various blows to him, he immediately shows the appellant and told that the appellant and along with other two persons have inflicted various blows to him by pointing out a finger towards the appellant; the police caught the appellant with knife and lodged the FIR accordingly. 10.3 On further inquiry with the appellant, he told the names of other two persons who succeeded in escaping from the scene of offence from the police, who have also assaulted the victim. Therefore, all the three accused tried before the learned trial Court. 10.3 On further inquiry with the appellant, he told the names of other two persons who succeeded in escaping from the scene of offence from the police, who have also assaulted the victim. Therefore, all the three accused tried before the learned trial Court. After full-fledged trial, the trial Court has acquitted two persons by giving benefit of doubt and in absence of sufficient evidence against them, whereas the present appellant is convicted by the learned trial Court and imposed punishment for life imprisonment, as sufficient material is found against the present appellant and the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. 10.4 It is noted that the State has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of those two persons. The present appeal is filed by the appellant – accused, who is convicted for life imprisonment by the learned trial Court, as the injured/victim succumbed to the fatal injuries for no fault of him. The injured was minor and was aged about 16 years old, studying in 11th standard. It is this appeal which is heard and decided by this Court today. As per jail remarks, the present appellant has undergone imprisonment of about ten years by this time. 10.5 The learned trial Court has acquitted other two accused by observing that there is no sufficient evidence against him. The State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant only, as the trial Court has convicted the present appellant for life imprisonment. Since there are material against the present appellant, the learned trial Court has convicted him for life imprisonment. The contention with regard to the similar and identical evidence as considered in the case of acquitted persons, should be considered in the case of the appellant is not sustainable. If some evidence is against any person, such person should be punished. In the present case, the learned trial Court is satisfied that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the present appellant by considering various documentary as well as oral evidence i.e. dying declaration, injuries, testimonies of police witnesses, etc., and therefore, the trial Court has convicted the present appellant and imposed punishment for life. Therefore, such contention would not be helpful to the appellant. Therefore, such contention would not be helpful to the appellant. 10.6 Further, with regard to the contention of panchnama of knife is concerned, the appellant is arrested by the complainant himself, who is a police officer, who was on patrolling duty at that time at Chauta Bazar area, who has received a message from the control room and therefore, he, along with his team in crime-1 and crime-2 vehicles, rushed towards Nanavat area, which is near Chowk Bazar Police Station. Since there were riots in the entire city of Surat, all the police officials were on duty at separate areas. It was not a normal situation at that time. Whenever any police official receives a message from the control room, he/they should run towards there to control the situation. Under the circumstances, the complainant – police officer rushed towards the place of incident. He arrested the appellant from the place of incident with weapon, the deceased identified the appellant. The police officer of Chowk Bazar Police Station – Mr.Simpi might be on duty on that day and out of police station. Whenever he resumed his duty at the police station on that day, the complaint is taken and panchnama is done. Therefore, it is but obvious that the timings of arrest of appellant by the complainant, who was a PSI at DCB Police Station, Surat and on duty due to riots and panchnama made by the concerned police officer of Chowk Bazar Police Station, in whose jurisdiction the incident has happened, is differed. 10.7 Further, it is not the case of the appellant that the appellant was arrested by any other person except the complainant. Further, it is not the case of the appellant that he was arrested from another place other than the place of offence. At this stage, the testimonies of all the police witnesses are important. All the police witnesses have deposed before the learned trial Court the consistent version about the fact that the appellant was caught by the police with weapon from the place of offence when he, along with other two persons, tried to escape from the place of offence. This tilts the balance against the appellant. Further, the place of offence i.e. Nanavat Area of Surat and the so-called place of employment of appellant i.e. Saudagar Vad of Surat is about 5 kilometers. This tilts the balance against the appellant. Further, the place of offence i.e. Nanavat Area of Surat and the so-called place of employment of appellant i.e. Saudagar Vad of Surat is about 5 kilometers. It was the time of rioting and the appellant was caught by the police with weapon. Therefore, the question of wrongly arrested by the police does not arise. 10.8 Further, there was no eye-witness to the incident except the police officials. All the police officials, in their depositions, have categorically, clearly and consistently deposed the almost same version/story about the incident that the police has received a message of rioting from the control room at Nanavat Area of Surat, when they reached at the place of incident, they saw that one person is lying on the road and three persons were beating him. After seeing the police, they tried to run away from the place of offence, two were succeeded in escaping and one is arrested with weapon by the police, the police took the said accused to the injured person, the injured has identified him and told by pointing out finger towards him that he, along with other two, has beaten him deadly. This is the story / version given by almost all the police officials who were present at the time of offence being a police team. There is no inconsistency in their depositions in such version. Therefore, it is clear from their depositions at Exh. 62, 64, 67, 70, 72, 77, 82 and 83. All the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution to this extent. 10.9 Further, the contention that who chased the appellant and others, who caught the appellant, who gave medical aid to the deceased before ambulance came, no blood stain in the vehicle, no blood stain on the clothes of the police officers, etc., do not inspire confidence looking to the consistent depositions of the police witnesses. 10.10 Under these circumstances, the contention/s of the appellant that no blood stain on the knife, who caught the appellant, who chased the appellant, in which vehicle the deceased was shifted to the hospital, etc., does not inspire confidence looking to the injuries to the deceased. It is not a case of defence that the deceased was beaten by unknown person other than the appellant. The learned trial Court has properly considered the various evidence and passed the impugned judgment. It is not a case of defence that the deceased was beaten by unknown person other than the appellant. The learned trial Court has properly considered the various evidence and passed the impugned judgment. The deceased was innocent person, who was murdered by the appellant brutally, that too without any fault. 10.11 At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the State of Uttar Pradesh versus Krishna Master and others reported in 2010 Criminal Law Journal 3889 (SC), more particularly Para : 8 thereof, which reads as under : “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 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 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 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 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 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. 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. 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 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. 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 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 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 the truth. In sifting the evidence, the Court has to attempt to separate the chaff from the grains in every case and this attempt 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. In the light of these principles, this Court will have to determine whether the evidence of eye- witnesses examined in this case proves the prosecution case.” 10.12 Further, with regard to the contention of dying declaration is concerned, it is noted that all the police witnesses have specifically stated that when the appellant was caught on the spot with weapon and taken to the victim, the victim has clearly showed his finger towards the appellant and told that the appellant and along with other two persons have beaten him with deadly weapons. At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Irfan @ Naka versus the State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 698 = 2023 INSC 758 , more particularly paragraph 62 thereof, which reads as under : “62. There is no hard and fast rule for determining when a dying declaration should be accepted; the duty of the Court is to decide this question in the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case and be fully convinced of the truthfulness of the same. Certain factors below reproduced can be considered to determine the same, however, they will only affect the weight of the dying declaration and not its admissibility: - (i) Whether the person making the statement was in expectation of death ? (ii) Whether the dying declaration was made at the earliest opportunity ? "Rule of First Opportunity" (iii) Whether there is any reasonable suspicion to believe the dying declaration was put in the mouth of the dying person ? (iv) Whether the dying declaration was a product of prompting, tutoring or leading at the instance of police or any interested party ? (v) Whether the statement was not recorded properly ? (vi) Whether, the dying declarant had opportunity to clearly observe the incident ? (vii) Whether, the dying declaration has been consistent throughout ? (viii) Whether, the dying declaration in itself is a manifestation / fiction of the dying persons imagination of what he thinks transpired ? (ix) Whether, the dying declaration was itself voluntary ? (x) In case of multiple dying declarations, whether, the first one inspires truth and consistent with the other dying declaration ? (xi) Whether, as per the injuries, it would have been impossible for the deceased to make a dying declaration ?” 10.13 Further, the person who accompanied with the deceased before the incident is Hasmukhbhai Bhikhabhai Rathod. He has deposed before the trial Court at Exh.53. He supported the case of the prosecution. He identified that accused. The accused has also beaten him badly with various weapons. 10.14 Further, the medical officer – Dr. Mahmad alias Isak Mahmad Shaikh has also given deposition before the trial Court at Exh.56, wherein he has supported the case of the prosecution. He has performed the postmortem of the deceased. He supported the case of the prosecution. He identified that accused. The accused has also beaten him badly with various weapons. 10.14 Further, the medical officer – Dr. Mahmad alias Isak Mahmad Shaikh has also given deposition before the trial Court at Exh.56, wherein he has supported the case of the prosecution. He has performed the postmortem of the deceased. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the injuries shown by him in the postmortem report, which is at Exh.57 – postmortem report as well as the cause of death shown in the said report i.e. ‘shock as a result of haemorrhage due to multiple stab injuries’. From the said report, it transpires that the deceased has received multiple stab injuries. Looking to the postmortem report as well as cause of death, it transpires that it is the appellant himself, along with other two persons, who gave various blows with the deadly weapon to the deceased when the police personnel came at the place of offence. 10.15 A heavy reliance is placed by the appellant upon the contention that there is no blood stain on the knife recovered from the appellant. At this juncture, it is noted that it is not the story of the appellant that the appellant was not available at the place of offence when the incident occurred. It is not the story of the appellant that he was available at another place. It is a matter of record that the appellant caught by the police from the place of incident with weapon and the deceased identified him by showing the finger. It is also noted that it was the time of ‘close down’ declared by the political parties due to terrorist attack upon the pilgrims at Amarnath Temple. The question is posed that why the appellant, along with other two persons, with deadly weapon, moving in the street at that time. When the deceased himself has identified the appellant by pointing out finger and told the police officers that the appellant along with other two persons have beaten him, the question of absence of blood stain on the knife, as reported by the FSL, does not tilt the balance in favour of the appellant looking to the other circumstances of the case. The depositions of the police witnesses, the dying declaration of the deceased at that point of time on the spot, the postmortem report, the injuries received by the deceased identified by the doctor, the injured person who fortunately saved from that place, who accompanied with the deceased and the circumstances on that day, tilt the balance against the appellant. 11.1 It is fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Govindaraju alias Govinda v. State by Sriramapuram P. S. and Anr. reported in (2012) 4 SCC 722 , more particularly Paras : 24 to 26, 30 and 67 thereof, which read as under : “24. It is a settled proposition of law of evidence that it is not the number of witnesses that matters but it is the substance. It is also not necessary to examine a large number of witnesses if the prosecution can bring home the guilt of the accused even with a limited number of witnesses. In the case of Lallu Manjhi and Anr. V/s. State of Jharkhand (2003) 2 SCC401, this Court had classified the oral testimony of the witnesses into three categories:- (a) Wholly reliable; (b) Wholly unreliable; and (c) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the third category of witnesses, the Court has to be cautious and see if the statement of such witness is corroborated, either by the other witnesses or by other documentary or expert evidence. 25. Equally well settled is the proposition of law that where there is a sole witness to the incident, his evidence has to be accepted with caution and after testing it on the touchstone of evidence tendered by other witnesses or evidence otherwise recorded. The evidence of a sole witness should be cogent, reliable and must essentially fit into the chain of events that have been stated by the prosecution. When the prosecution relies upon the testimony of a sole eye-witness, then such evidence has to be wholly reliable and trustworthy. Presence of such witness at the occurrence should not be doubtful. If the evidence of the sole witness is in conflict with the other witnesses, it may not be safe to make such a statement as a foundation of the conviction of the accused. These are the few principles which the Court has stated consistently and with certainty. 26. Presence of such witness at the occurrence should not be doubtful. If the evidence of the sole witness is in conflict with the other witnesses, it may not be safe to make such a statement as a foundation of the conviction of the accused. These are the few principles which the Court has stated consistently and with certainty. 26. Reference in this regard can be made to the cases of Joseph V/s. State of Kerala (2003) 1 SCC 465 and Tika Ram V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007) 15 SCC 760 . Even in the case of Jhapsa Kabari and Others V/s. State of Bihar (2001) 10 SCC 94, this Court took the view that if the presence of a witness is doubtful, it becomes a case of conviction based on the testimony of a solitary witness. There is, however, no bar in basing the conviction on the testimony of a solitary witness so long as the said witness is reliable and trustworthy. 30. It cannot be stated as a rule that a police officer can or cannot be a sole eye- witness in a criminal case. It will always depend upon the facts of a given case. If the testimony of such a witness is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and duly corroborated by other witnesses or admissible evidences, then the statement of such witness cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is a police officer and may have some interest in success of the case. It is only when his interest in the success of the case is motivated by overzealousness to an extent of his involving innocent people; in that event, no credibility can be attached to the statement of such witness. 67. We are certainly not indicating that despite all this, the statement of the Police Officer for recovery and other matters could not be believed and form the basis of conviction but where the statement of such witness is not reliable and does not aspire confidence, then the accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt in accordance with law. Mere absence of independent witnesses when the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the accused and the article was recovered pursuant thereto, is not a sufficient ground to discard the evidence of the Police Officer relating to recovery at the instance of the accused. Mere absence of independent witnesses when the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the accused and the article was recovered pursuant thereto, is not a sufficient ground to discard the evidence of the Police Officer relating to recovery at the instance of the accused. {See State Government of NCT of Delhi V/s. Sunil & Anr. [ (2001) 1 SCC 652 ]}. Similar would be the situation where the attesting witnesses turn hostile, but where the statement of the Police Officer itself is unreliable then it may be difficult for the Court to accept the recovery as lawful and legally admissible. The official acts of the Police should be presumed to be regularly performed and there is no occasion for the courts to begin with initial distrust to discard such evidence.” 11.2 It is also fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Leela Ram (Dead) Through Duli Chand versus State of Haryana and Another reported in (1999) 9 SCC 525 , more particularly Paras : 8 to12 and 18 thereof, which read as under : “8. Before however, proceeding with the matter on two counts as above, it would be convenient to note another aspect of the matter, namely, the observations pertaining to the investigation by the Investigating Agency. It is now a well settled principle that any irregularity or even an illegality during investigation ought not to be treated as a ground to reject the prosecution case and we need not dilate on the issue excepting referring a decision of this Court [vide State of Rajasthan V/s. Kishore, AIR 1996 SC 3035 : (1996 AIR(SCW) 1392 : 1996 Cri LJ 2003)]. 9. Be it noted that the High Court is within its jurisdiction being the first appellate Court to re-appraise the evidence, but the discrepancies found in the ocular account of two witnesses unless they are so vital, cannot affect the credibility of the evidence of the witnesses. There is bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefor should not render the evidence of eye- witnesses unbelievable. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefor should not render the evidence of eye- witnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. In this context, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in the State of Uttar Pradesh V/s. M. K. Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48 : (1985 Cri LJ 493). In paragraph 10 of the report, this Court observed : “10. 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 impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinise 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 given by the witness 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, hypertechnical 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 a whole. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of 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 the trial Court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals." 10. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals." 10. In a very recent decision in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1999 (Rammi alias Rameshwar V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh) with Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 1999 (Bhura alias Sajjan Kumar V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh) this Court observed : "When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant. But Courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the Court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny". This Court further observed : “25. It is a common practice in trial Court to make out contradictions from previous statement of a witness for confronting him during cross- examination. Merely because there is inconsistency in evidence it is not sufficient to impair the credit of the witness. No doubt Section 155 of the Evidence Act provides scope for impeaching the credit of a witness by proof of inconsistent former statement. But a reading of the Section would indicate that all inconsistent statements are not sufficient to impeach the credit of the witness. The material portion of the Section is extracted below : "155. Impeaching credit of witness. The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party, or, with the consent of the Court, by the party who calls him - (1) – (2) (3) by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted." 26. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Only such of the inconsistent statement which is liable to be "contradicted" would affect the credit of the witness. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Only such of the inconsistent statement which is liable to be "contradicted" would affect the credit of the witness. Section 145 of the Evidence Act also enables the cross-examiner to use any former statement of the witness, but it cautions that if it intended to "contradict" the witness the cross-examiner is enjoined to comply with the formality prescribed therein. Section 162 of the Code also permits the cross-examiner to use the previous statement of the witness (recorded under Section 161 of the Code) for the only limited purpose, i.e. to "contradict"the witness. 27. To contradict a witness, therefore, must be to discredit the particular version of the witness. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the present statement, even if the latter is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness, [vide Tahsildar Singh V/s. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 1012 :(1959 Cri LJ 1231)]. 11. The Court shall have to bear in mind that different witnesses react differently under different situations : whereas some become speechless, some start wailing while some others run away from the scene and yet there are some who may come forward with courage, conviction and belief that wrong should be remedied. As a matter of fact it depends upon individuals and individuals. There cannot be any set pattern or uniform rule of human reaction and to discard a piece of evidence on the ground of his reaction not falling within a set pattern is unproductive and a pedantic exercise. 12. It is indeed necessary to note that hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain some exaggeration or embellishments-sometimes there could even be a deliberate attempt to offer embellishment and sometimes in their over anxiety they may give slightly exaggerated account. The Court can sift the chaff from the corn and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. Total repulsion of the evidence is unnecessary. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness - if this element is satisfied, they ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court to accept the stated evidence though not however in the absence of the same. 18. Total repulsion of the evidence is unnecessary. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness - if this element is satisfied, they ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court to accept the stated evidence though not however in the absence of the same. 18. Admittedly, there was some dispute pertaining to digging of a water course through the land of the deceased-Maman. There is such an evidence that the Sarpanch of the village was going to resolve the dispute between the parties and it was at this juncture this gruesome murder took place, motive therefore, cannot be ruled out. The High Court has proceeded on the basis that two eye-witnesses being the son and brother-in-law of the deceased are interested witnesses, and hence their evidence ought not to be relied upon, we are unable to concur therewith. The ocular account though may have been given by the son and the brother- in-law does not by itself loses its efficacy or its evidentiary value unless some other factor is brought on record to discredit the creditworthiness of the witnesses. On the facts of the matter under consideration, the presence of Leela Ram being the son of the deceased appears to be quite natural by reason of the fact that the father had a land dispute with someone else and the son in the normal way could be interested in settlement of the dispute. As such his presence during parley cannot be termed unnatural. Similar was the situation as regards the presence of Kurra Ram, brother-in-law of the deceased, who has lodged a complaint to the Panchayat. If Kurra Ram, also accompanied the Panchayat members for the amicable settlement of the dispute, in our view, there is nothing unnatural about it. Evidence of both the eye-witnesses stand fully corroborated by the Sarpanch who is an independent witness. The High Court has doubted the veracity of his evidence only on the ground that the brother of the accused once lost election against the witness. We consider that as too feeble a ground to doubt the evidence of the Sarpanch. Evidence of both the eye-witnesses stand fully corroborated by the Sarpanch who is an independent witness. The High Court has doubted the veracity of his evidence only on the ground that the brother of the accused once lost election against the witness. We consider that as too feeble a ground to doubt the evidence of the Sarpanch. The core of his testimony remains reliable and no good reason can be traced out to reject it.” 11.3 It is also fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Selvaraj Versus State By Inspector Of Police, Tamil Nadu reported in (2018) 17 SCC 505 , more particularly Paras : 8 and 9 thereof, which read as under : “8. However, we are still left with the evidence of Tamilvanan (PW-11) who has specifically named the accused appellants. While the ratio of the law laid down by this Court in Masalti & Ors. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 202 and Busi Koteswara Rao and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2012 12 SCC 711 may not strictly apply to the present case inasmuch as the present is a case where a large number of accused had attacked a single person what we are left with in the present case is the sole testimony of Tamilvanan (PW-11). The question that arises is how safe will it be to convict the accused appellants on the basis of the sole testimony of the said witness. 9. In this regard, we have taken note of the evidence of Ramachandran, V.A.O. (PW-14) who had proved the statement of Accused No.4 - Kalaimohan s/o Desingu leading to the recovery of a knife. Injuries caused by a knife is a possible cause of death as mentioned in the evidence of Dr. M. Anandakumar (PW-13). However, the recovery of the knife is only at the instance of the Accused No.4 - Kalaimohan s/o Desingu and there has been no recovery of any offending weapon at the instance of the Accused No. 3 - Selvaraj s/o Veerappan. Both the accused, therefore, cannot be treated at par and would, in fact, stand on a different footing. However, the recovery of the knife is only at the instance of the Accused No.4 - Kalaimohan s/o Desingu and there has been no recovery of any offending weapon at the instance of the Accused No. 3 - Selvaraj s/o Veerappan. Both the accused, therefore, cannot be treated at par and would, in fact, stand on a different footing. As the conviction of the Accused No.3 - Selvaraj s/o Veerappan is based on the sole testimony of Tamilvanan (PW-11) which is inconsistent with the evidence of other eye-witness i.e. Kadal Dhanasekar (PW-6) and as there is no statement made by the said Accused No.3 - Selvaraj s/o Veerappan leading to recovery of any weapon, we are of the view that Accused No.3 - Selvaraj s/o Veerappan deserves an order of acquittal. We order accordingly.” 12. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the law enunciated in the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellant, however, it cannot be helpful to the appellant any further in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. The present case does not fall within the purview of these decisions with such facts. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13. The learned trial Court has rightly evaluated all the documents as well as oral evidence of the witnesses in its judgment impugned and held the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and punished the appellant for life imprisonment. 14. In view of above and under the circumstances, this appeal needs to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.