Evidence of hostile witnesses need not be thrown out entirely: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that merely because witnesses turn hostile during criminal trials, it does not necessarily mean that their testimony has to be wholly discarded [Goverdhan & Anr v State of Chhattisgarh]..Any portion of the evidence given by such hostile witnesses that supports the prosecution's case could still be considered, observed the three-judge Bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, KV Viswanathan, and N Kotiswar Singh."Merely because the witnesses turn hostile (it) does not necessarily mean that their evidence has to be thrown out entirely and what is supportive of the prosecution certainly be used," the Court said..The Court made the observation while refusing to acquit two of three persons booked for having assaulted a man with weapons in 2001, leading to his eventual death. During the trial of the case, most of the witnesses had turned hostile. After examining the case records, however, the top court noted that this shift in testimony was likely done to shield the convicts who were known to them."We have also noted the testimonies of other neighbours, which we consider to be highly unnatural and untruthful and they appear to be reluctant to come up with the truth in order to protect the appellants ... Because of the unnaturalness of the testimonies of these neighbours before the court, which defy human behaviour, the reasonable inference one can draw is that these witnesses have been won over," the Court said. .The Court eventually partly allowed the appeal filed by the two convicts, by modifying their murder conviction to one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Since they had also completed 10 years and 3 months of imprisonment during the pendency of their appeals before the High Court and Supreme Court, they were also sentenced to the period already served in jail. They had earlier been released on bail in 2012 by the Supreme Court, after they filed an appeal in 2011. The Court's final judgment allows them to remain out of prison, provided they pay a fine. The Court ordered both the convicts to pay ₹50,000 each to the mother of the deceased man, adding that they would be imprisoned for six months if they failed to pay this fine. .The Court was dealing with an appeal against a 2009 Chhattisgarh High Court judgment in a murder case concerning the assault and subsequent death of one Suraj in 2001. The High Court had upheld the conviction and life sentences of two persons, Govardhan and Rajendra. However, it set aside the conviction of their father, Chintaram, who was the third accused in the case.Goverdhan and Rajendra (appellants) eventually challenged their conviction by filing an appeal before the Supreme Court in 2011. .The appellants argued that most of the prosecution witnesses, except the mother of the deceased man, had turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution's case. They also claimed that the deceased man's mother was pressurised into giving statements against the appellants. They added that her testimony was uncorroborated and lacked independent supporting evidence, making it insufficient to sustain the convictions.Further, they contended that the High Court had acquitted their father, Chintaram based on the same evidence used to convict them (appellants). This violated the principles of parity, they said. .The Court, however, rejected these arguments. Relying on the judgment in Gangadhar Behera v State of Orissa, the Court reiterated that even if most of the evidence presented by the prosecution appears deficient in some respects, an accused's conviction can be upheld if the remaining evidence is sufficient to prove guilt, regardless of the acquittal of co-accused persons. It is the court's duty to distinguish between reliable and unreliable evidence, the Bench observed..The acquittal of Chintaram (the father of the appellants), therefore, did not warrant the acquittal of the appellants themselves, the Court held. It found that there was sufficient evidence to establish the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard, the Court also briefly discussed what is meant by "reasonable doubt.""It means that such doubt must be free from suppositional speculation. It must not be the result of minute emotional detailing, and the doubt must be actual and substantial and not merely vague apprehension. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense as observed in Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai," it said..The Court added that despite minor contradictions and embellishments in the testimony given by the deceased man's mother, her account of the incident was consistent overall. Therefore, it found no reason to disbelieve her and saw no significant error in the appellants' conviction.Senior Advocate Rajesh Pandey and advocates Aswathi MK, Rahil Kochar, Ayushi Pandey, Nishi Prabha Singh and Mahesh Pandey appeared for the appellants.Deputy Advocate General Ravi Sharma and advocates Prashant Singh, Advocates Prerna Dhall, MN Gopinadh, Karishma Rajput and Shivam Ganeshia represented the State..[Read Judgement]