JAI PRAKASH TIWARI VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JAI PRAKASH TIWARI VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 704 OF 2018

JAI PRAKASH TIWARI              …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH        …RESPONDENT(S)

    JUDGMENT

    N.V.    RAMANA, CJI.

1. The   present   appeal   arises   from   the   judgment   dated

26.05.2017 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at

Jabalpur   in   Criminal   Appeal   No.   1870/2005.   The   High

Court   dismissed   the   appellant’s   appeal   against   judgment

dated 18.08.2005 passed by the First Additional Sessions

Judge, Sidhi in Sessions Trial No. 119/2003, confirming his

conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(‘IPC’) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (‘Arms

Act’). 

2. The   appellant   was   sentenced   to   undergo   three   years   of

rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/­ under Section

1

REPORTABLE

307 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo three years of

rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/­ under Section

27 of the Arms Act and one year of rigorous imprisonment

with fine of Rs.500/­ under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

Appellant has undergone approximately 1 year, 7 months of

his sentence and was released on bail by this Court during

the pendency of the present appeal.

3. The   factual   matrix   as   per   the   prosecution   is   that,   on

14.02.2003   at   about   10:30   p.m.,   the   appellant   and   coaccused went to the complainant’s house and called him

outside. When the complainant came out, the appellant fired

at him with a country­made pistol. The complainant (PW2) is

stated to have run into the house and escaped injury while

the appellant and co­accused fled from the spot on their

motorcycle. The complainant’s mother (PW3) was allegedly

present in the house at the time of the incident and the

complainant’s neighbours (PW1, PW10, PW11) arrived upon

hearing the sound of gunfire. The firearm used in the alleged

incident is stated to have been recovered from the appellant,

along with an empty cartridge.

2

4. The   prosecution   charged   the   appellant   and   co­accused

under   Section   307/34   IPC   and   Sections   25(1B)   (a)   and

Section 27(1) of the Arms Act. After perusal of evidence on

record   and   examination   of   witnesses,   the   trial   Court

convicted and sentenced the appellant as specified above

while   acquitting   the   co­accused,   as   the   prosecution   had

failed to prove the charges against him. By way of impugned

order dated 26.05.2017, the Madhya Pradesh High Court

confirmed   the   appellant’s   conviction   and   sentence.

Aggrieved, the appellant approached this Court in appeal by

way of special leave.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that

the entire case of the prosecution is based on the testimony

of the complainant (PW2) and the hearsay evidence of his

mother (PW3), who is an interested witness, and there is no

corroborative evidence or independent witness to support

their testimonies. He has submitted that the prosecution

witnesses to both the incident as well as the alleged recovery

of the firearm have turned hostile. He has also relied on the

testimony of the IO (PW9) to state that no empty cartridges

3

or pellets were recovered from the place of incident, which

casts a doubt upon the prosecution’s case. Learned counsel

for the appellant has submitted that the complainant has a

close nexus with the police department as his father is a

retired Inspector and his brother and sister are also police

officers. He also submits that besides the complainant, no

witness has been produced by the prosecution who had seen

the appellant at the site of the incident. 

6. Learned   counsel   for   the   respondent­State,   on   the   other

hand, has supported the concurrent judgments of conviction

given by the courts below. He has stated that there is no

error in relying on the statements of the complainant (PW2)

and his mother (PW3), whose testimony is corroborated by

ballistic   evidence   and   seizure   of   the   firearm   and   empty

cartridge from the appellant. 

7. Heard  the   learned   counsel   on   merits   and   perused   the

material on record.

8. The  prosecution strongly relies upon the statement of the

complainant and his mother. A perusal of the statement of

the   complainant   reveals   that   the   accused­appellant   had

4

come in front of his house and upon asking as to why they

were here, the accused­appellant and his companion kept

quiet. The complainant asked them to leave. Thereafter, the

accused allegedly took out his country made pistol and fired

a shot at the complainant. The accused and his companion

then sped away on their bike. The complainant had already

run   inside   the   house   and   was,   therefore,   unharmed.

Subsequently, the mother of the complainant and his three

neighbours came to the scene of the occurrence. 

9. From the evidence on record, it is clear that, apart from the

complainant   and   his   mother,   the   other   independent

witnesses namely Rajat Shukla (PW1), Amit Bhasin (PW10)

and   Vikas   Shukla   (PW11)   have   denied   witnessing   the

incident. Even, the Sub­Inspector­Rahul Sharma (PW9), in

his cross examination, has stated that the abovementioned

witnesses during their police statements under Section 161

of the Cr.P.C, had indicated that they had not seen the

accused­appellant firing the shot. 

10. Under the above circumstances, the only evidence available

to prove the presence of the accused at the scene, apart from

5

the testimony of the complainant himself, is that of PW3, his

mother. Although, the counsel on behalf of the accused has

argued that the testimony of the aforesaid witness should

not be taken into consideration as she is an “interested”

witness, it is an established principle of law that a close

relative   cannot   automatically   be   characterized   as   an

“interested” witness. However, it is trite that even related

witness statements need to be scrutinized more carefully.

[See Bhaskarrao v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC

591; State of Rajasthan v. Madan, (2019) 13 SCC 653]

11. In the above context it is pertinent to note the statement of

the complainant (PW2) and the mother of the complainant

(PW3):

Deposition of PW2

In Examination­in­Chief, it is stated by PW2 that:

“… On 14th  February 2003 at 10.30 pm, I

was   at   my   home.   At   that   very   time,

Jaiprakash and Pintu had come in front of

my house on motorcycle and blew horn twice

whereupon I had come outside. When I had

come   outside   my   house   I   had   seen   Pintu

Dubey   on   driving   seat   and   Jaiprakash   as

pillion   rider,   Motorcycle   was   on.   I   asked

Pintu that­what is the purpose of coming,

whereupon   he   replied   that­Jaiprakash   has

brought me with him, so ask him. So, I had

asked Jaiprakash but he did not reply. It felt

6

like Jaiprakash was intoxicated So I asked

them to leave and that I will talk to them

later. Then Pintu raced the bike. As soon as

Pintu   raced   the   bike,   at   that   very   time

Jaiprakash had taken out the Country made

pistol and fired on me and they had gone

away abusing. By that time, I had run and

entered the house.

Thereafter,   two   three   people   from   the

locality   had   come.   My  mother   also   had

    come.  My neighbours named Amit Bhasin,

Vikas Shukla, Rajat Shukla had come there.

My   mother   asked   me   that­what   had

happened, so I told her about the incident.”

Deposition of PW3

In Examination­in­Chief, it is stated by PW3 that:

“… the incident is of 14th February, 2003 at

about 10.30 pm.   I was at my home.   The

voice of boys had come from outside, sound

of motorcycle also had come.   Sound was

coming from outside that – Sandeep come

outside,   whereupon   Sandeep   had   gone

    outside.       I had followed him as well.   Two

boys were sitting on motorcycle, motorcycle

was start.   It was sounding as if someone

was abusing in loud voice and they had fired

during conversation itself.   So Sandeep had

come inside immediately when fired.”

In cross­examination, it is stated by PW3 that:

“I was in the verandah first.   I  had   come

outside   when   I   heard   sound   of   gunshot.

The verandah is open from where the outer

scene is visible. It is not true to say that I

had merely heard the bang…… and even I

had witnessed it.”

7

Then again in cross­examination, it is stated:

“…. I was not acquainted with the accused

persons  beforehand.   It is not true to say

that I have not seen the incident…”

(emphasis supplied)

12. It must be noted that the complainant clearly states that his

mother came to the spot after the incident. On the other

hand, in the chief examination, his mother states that she

followed   the   complainant   when   he   went   outside   and

therefore,   she   witnessed   the   incident.   In   her   crossexamination, she states that she came outside when she

heard the gunshot. However, she saw the incident from the

verandah.

13. Contradictions aside, it must be noted that the incident took

place   at   around   10:30   pm   in   the   night.   It   is   no­where

mentioned that the accused and PW3 were familiar to the

extent that she could recognize him in a fleeting moment

while he was speeding away on his bike. She also failed to

provide any discernable features of the accused­appellant. In

fact, she specifically states that she was not acquainted with

the accused persons. It seems highly improbable that the

mother of the complainant, PW3 instantly recognized the

8

appellant­accused   at   night.   No   effort   has   been   made   to

conduct   an   identification   test,   to   associate   the   accusedappellant with the alleged incident. After closely scrutinizing

the statement of PW3, mother of the complainant, we must

state that the same does not inspire confidence. 

14. The High Court and the trial Court have laid great emphasis

on the recovery of a motorcycle and a country­made pistol

from the possession of the accused­appellant. 

15. In this context, it is pertinent to note the statements of PW5

and PW8, the witnesses to the seizure:

Deposition of PW5

In Examination­in­Chief, it is stated that:

“Police   had   caught   Jaiprakash   and   found

one   country   made   pistol   while   searching

him…..   I   do   not   remember   whether   any

documentation had been done or not.  Then

Jaiprakash had been held in the lockup and

I had returned back.   Police had not seized

any vehicle before me.

It is important to note that at this stage,

the AGP sought permission to ask leading

question   to   the   witness   declaring   him

hostile……  I   do   not   remember   this   today

that whether a motorcycle had been seized

from accused Jaiprakash before me or not.”

In Cross­Examination, it is stated that:

9

“I know Sandeep Upadhyaya.   I have good

terms   with   him….   The   neighbours   of

Jaiprakash were not present when the Police

had done proceedings, then said that people

were there but he did not know them.   No

neighbours   of   Jaiprakash   had   signed   the

documents.     Police   had   not   called   the

neighbours of Jaiprakash.”

Deposition of PW8

In Examination­in­Chief:

Police had seized one country made pistol

from accused.   No  other  thing  other  than

pistol had been seized before me nor had

the   accused   stated   to   seize   the   same   in

my presence.

It is not true to say that one black coloured

Splendor   motorcycle   wherein   MP   17   MB

9735 was written had not been seized from

accused Jaiprakash before me.”

(emphasis supplied)

16. The sub­Inspector­Rahul Sharma (PW9) has stated in his

evidence that the alleged motorcycle and the country made

pistol were seized from the complainant’s house based on

the disclosure statement of the accused­appellant. However,

the   witnesses   to   the   seizure   (PW5   and   PW8)   have   given

varying statements regarding the same. In fact, PW5 clearly

stated   that   there   was   no   recovery   of   bike,   and   he   was,

therefore,   declared   hostile   by   the   prosecution.   Moreover,

although PW8 has stated that no other thing other than the

10

pistol   was   seized,   he   contradicts   himself   by   stating   that

indeed a black coloured splendor motorcycle was seized. The

aforesaid contradiction in the statement of PW8 cannot be

stated to be minor. The same, therefore, does not inspire

confidence.

17. It also needs to be noted that there has been no recovery of

any   pellet,   empty   cartridge,   or   any   remains   of   the

gunpowder   from   the   spot.   In   the   absence   of   a   ballistic

report,   there   is   no   clear   connection   between   the   seized

weapon   and   the   alleged   incident.   Moreover,   even   the

complainant   had   given   a   vague   description   of   the

motorcycle. Neither the license number nor the colour or any

other   distinguishing   features   have   been   indicated   by   the

complainant. Even here, there is no linking factor between

the seized vehicle and the alleged incident.

18. Another important issue that merits consideration in the

present appeal is that the accused­appellant, in his Section

313 statement, stated that he and the complainant belonged

to opposing student parties. The accused­appellant claimed

that owing to the animosity pertaining to the elections, the

11

accused­appellant was falsely implicated in the matter. He

also produced two witnesses to prove his alibi. DW1 and

DW2   have  stated   that   the   accused   appellant  was   in   his

village as his mother was unwell. Moreover, the accusedappellant also pointed out to the Court that the father, sister

and brother of the complainant were all a part of the police

department.   The   accused­appellant   also   brought   to   the

notice of the Court  the fact that the complainant had also

registered   another   criminal   case   against   the   accusedappellant in which he already stands acquitted.

19. In the case at hand, the alternate version put forth by the

appellant­accused could not be ignored.  Section 313 CrPC

confers a valuable right upon an accused to establish his

innocence and can well be considered beyond a statutory

right, as a constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21

of   the   Constitution.[See  Reena   Hazarika   v.   State   of

Assam, (2019) 13 SCC 289]

20. This   Court   in   the   case   of  Satbir   Singh   v.   State   of

Haryana,  (2021)   6   SCC   1,   while   emphasising   upon   the

12

significance of Section 313 CrPC, has delineated the duty of

the trial Court and held thus:

“22. It   is   a   matter   of   grave   concern   that,

often, trial courts record the statement of an

accused under Section 313 CrPC in a very

casual   and   cursory   manner,   without

specifically questioning the accused as to his

defence. It   ought   to   be   noted   that   the

examination  of   an   accused  under  Section

313   CrPC   cannot   be   treated   as   a   mere

procedural formality, as it is based on the

fundamental   principle   of   fairness.   This

provision   incorporates   the   valuable

principle   of   natural   justice   —   “audi

alteram partem”, as it enables the accused

to   offer   an   explanation   for   the

incriminatory   material   appearing   against

him. Therefore, it imposes an obligation on

the   part   of   the   court   to   question   the

accused fairly, with care and caution. The

court   must   put   incriminating

circumstances before the accused and seek

his   response.  A   duty   is   also   cast   on   the

counsel of the accused to prepare his defence,

since   the   inception   of   the   trial,   with   due

caution…”

(emphasis supplied)

21. In   the   context   of   the   abovementioned   precedents,   it   is

imperative to have a look at the evidence of the defence:

    “EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED NO.1

Q3 On   dated   14.2.03   at   about   10:30   O’

clock   in   the   night   you   accused   and   coaccused Pintu @ Padamdhar Dubey had come

13

to house of complainant Sandeep Upadhyay

(PW2) situated at Arjun Nagar, Uttar Karodiya

by   Hero   Honda   Motorcycle   bearing   number

MP 17B/9795.  What do you say?

Ans: It is incorrect.  I had gone to village.

    DEFENCE PLEA OF ACCUSED

When accused Jaiprakash Tiwari s/o Girija

Prasad Tiwari has been called upon to enter

his defence, then he states that:­

I   had   not   casted   vote   in   the   favour   of

Sandeep’s candidate in the election of college.

Sandeep was in favour of N.S.U.I.   I was in

    favour   of      Vidhyarthi   Parishad  (Student

Council).   Due  to  this  reason,  I  have  been

    falsely implicated.

On asking from the accused that whether he

has to give defence evidence, then he states

that :­ I have to give defence evidence.

    DEPOSITION OF DW1 

    EXAMINATION­IN­CHIEF

1. I know accused Jaiprakash and his parents.

Their house is at Maata; at Karaudia in Sidhi;

at   village   Amahatola   and   Hanumangarh,

Veldah as well.  On 14.02.2003, I had reached

the house of the accused at 9­9:15 hours at

North Karaudia and taken him to his house at

village   Maata   on   motorcycle   as   his   mother

had   fallen   sick   at   village   Maata.     We   had

reached   Maata   at   11­11.30   hours.     Then

Jaiprakash   Tiwari   had   called   the   Jan

Swasthya Rakshak at about 12 hours and got

his mother treated.  Drip had been applied to

14

    his mother till morning on 15th

    and at that

time two to four people were there along with

Jaiprakash.

Deposition of DW2

    EXAMINATION­IN­CHIEF

1. I know accused Jaiprakash.  His house is in

Sidhi and at Maata as well.   On 14.2.2003,

Jaiprakash was at village Maata.   Mother of

Jaiprakash was suffering from vomiting and

diarrhea and therefore as per my information

Jaiprakash   has   been   at   village   Maata  from

11.00am till 8 am the other day on 15.2.2003.

2. I   had   myself   seen   Jaiprakash   going   to   his

house.     I   am   neighbour   of   Jaiprakash.

Jaiprakash   had   been   called   from   Sidhi   to

Maata   by   Shankardayal   as   mother   of

Jaiprakash was not well.  I had heard after 4­

6 days that Jaiprakash had been arrested for

some incident of the said date.”

(emphasis supplied)

22. In the present case, the accused while being examined had

stated himself that he had gone to his village on the date of

the incident. To support his case, he produced two defence

witnesses who have corroborated his presence in the village.

Furthermore, the accused claimed to be falsely implicated in

the   case   owing   to   political   rivalry.   However,   without

scrutinizing the aforesaid plea of the defence, the trial Court

observes:

15

“10.  The   accused   Jayprakash   Tiwari   has

not   stated   anything   in   his   examination

that he has been falsely implicated in the

case by  the.  prosecution witnesses  or  any

other   reason   or   motive   for   his   false

    implication. The evidence of the complainant

Sandeep is corroborated by the evidence of

Amit Bhasin_PW_10 and Vikash ­PW­11 who

had   reached   the   place   of   occurrence

immediately   after   the  incident   and   in   such

situation   the   evidence   of   the   complainant

Sandeep   Upaddhyay   and   other   prosecution

witnesses is believable and it is proved from

their evidence that on the date of incident the

accused   Jayprakash   Tiwari   had   fired   upon

the   complainant   Sandeep   Upaddhay   from

firearm katta  with knowledge and intention

under   such   circumstances   that   if   the

complainant   had   died   then   the   accused

Jayprakash Tiwari would be guilty of murder.”

(emphasis supplied)

23. In a similar manner, the trial Court refused to weigh in the

evidence   of   alibi.   The   trial   Court   while   disbelieving   the

defense witnesses observes:

“14. In such a situation the defence plea of

the accused appears to be an afterthought.

From the perusal of the evidence of the defence

witnesses   Shankerdayal   Mishra_DW_l   and

Krushnakumar   Tiwari_PW­2   it   is   clear   that

both ∙the witnesses are the neighbours of the

accused and residents of same village. Being

farmers and after a gap of two years they have

remembered the date of incident.  It   appears

that these witnesses are trying to save the

16

accused   by   stating   his   presence   in   their

village.”

(emphasis supplied)

24. The   High   Court   without   independently   analyzing   the

aforesaid statements and evidence, upholds the finding of

the Trial Court. The High Court observes that:

“22.   This   Court   is   in   agreement   with   the

findings   of   learned   trial   Court   that,   defence

taken by the appellant has not been suggested

any   prosecution   witness,   nor   stated   by   the

appellant during his accused statement under

Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The   plea   of  alibi  has   been   taken   by   the

appellant is after thought. Hence, no benefit is

granted in favour of the appellant with regard

to   plea   of  alibi.  Thus,   the   conviction   of   the

appellant under Section 307 of IPC, is hereby

maintained.”

25. In the present case, the courts below failed to scrutinize the

defence version put forward by the appellant­accused in his

Section 313 statement. The object of Section 313 of the Code

is to establish a direct dialogue between the court and the

accused. (See Asraf Ali v. State of Assam,  (2008) 16 SCC

328)

26. The purpose of Section 313 CrPC is to provide the accused a

reasonable opportunity to explain the adverse circumstances

17

which have emerged against him during the course of trial.

A   reasonable   opportunity   entails   putting   all   the   adverse

evidences   in   the   form   of   questions   so   as   to   give   an

opportunity to the accused to articulate his defence and give

his explanation.  

27. If all the circumstances are bundled together and a single

opportunity is provided to the accused to explain himself, he

may   not   able   to   put   forth   a   rational   and   intelligible

explanation. Such, exercises which defeats fair opportunity

are nothing but empty formality. Non­fulfilment of the true

spirit of Section 313 may ultimately cause grave prejudice to

the accused and the Court may not have the benefit of all

the   necessary facts and circumstances to arrive at a fair

conclusion. 

28. Such an omission does not ipso facto vitiate the trial, unless

the accused fails to prove that grave prejudice has been

caused to him. Although the counsel on behalf the accused

has not proved any serious prejudice caused to him due to

failure of the Court in framing individual circumstances;

however, considering the long pendency of the matter and

18

the right of the accused to have a fair and expeditious trial,

we propose to proceed and decide the matter on its own

merit.

29. It is an established principle of criminal law that the burden

of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt

is   upon   the   prosecution.   Where  an   accused   sets   up   a

defence or offers an explanation, it is well­settled that he is

not required to prove his defence beyond a reasonable doubt

but only by preponderance of probabilities.  [See M. Abbas

v.  State  of  Kerala,   (2001)  10  SCC  103]. Further, it has

been held by this Court in  Parminder  Kaur   v.  State  of

Punjab,   (2020)  8  SCC  811  that “once a plausible version

has   been   put   forth   in   defence   at   the   Section   313   CrPC

examination stage, then it is for the prosecution to negate

such defence plea”. 

30. Moreover,   it   is   the   solemn   duty   of   the   courts   below   to

consider the  defence  of the accused. The same must be

considered   with   caution   and   must   be   scrutinised   by

application of mind by the judge. The Court may accept or

reject the same, however it cannot be done cursorily. The

19

reasoning and the application of mind must be reflected in

writing. However, from the observations extracted above, it

is clear that the courts below have failed to undertake this

solemn duty. Rather, the evidence of the accused has been

dealt by the Court in a casual manner.

31. In   the   above   circumstances,   when   there   is   absence   of

independent evidence corroborating the statements made by

complainant, serious doubts regarding the recovery of the

alleged   motorcycle   and   the   country   made   pistol,   no

connection proved between the alleged recovered items and

the alleged incident, and the plausible version put forward

by the accused­appellant in his Section 313 statement has

not been satisfactorily responded to by the prosecution, the

case against the accused­appellant cannot be sustained.

32. It is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the

chaff and to extract the truth from the mass of evidence. In

our opinion, the case of the prosecution is based on mere

conjectures   and   surmises. The   High   Court   and   the   trial

Court failed to consider the abovementioned circumstances

while rendering the judgment convicting the accused. The

20

evidence brought on record by the prosecution is insufficient

to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable

doubt. 

33. For these  reasons,  the  appeal  is,  therefore, allowed. The

conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are set

aside.   The   appellant   is   on   bail.   The   appellant   stands

discharged from the bail bonds.

............................CJI.

(N. V. RAMANA)

..…..........................J.

(KRISHNA MURARI)

.........…………….......J.

    (HIMA KOHLI)

NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 04, 2022.

21