Shanker & Anr vs State Of U.P
- SCC(2009) 17 SCC 702
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Evidence of a witness who was not present at the actual spot where the fatal blow was struck, but was in close physical proximity (approximately 25 feet away), may be regarded as admissible and probative of events that occurred at that spot when: (i) the distance between the two locations is small enough to make it factually possible for the witness to be aware of happenings at the principal location; and (ii) the witness's evidence is corroborated by direct eyewitness testimony of the occurrence. The evidence of a person who received information about an assault currently in progress (res gestae evidence under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act) is admissible even though that person did not directly witness the assault, provided the information was received as part of the transaction in question. The failure to examine an intermediary who conveyed information about an ongoing assault to the first informant does not render inadmissible the evidence of the first informant who acted on that information, where direct eyewitness evidence of the assault is available.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
We have heard learned counsel for the parties very carefully. We
have also gone through the evidence and examined the site plan with the
help of the learned counsel for the appellants. We find that the case
against the accused has been proved by the evidence of Chakrapal Singh
- P.W.1 and Smt. Vishuna - P.W.2 an injured witness whose presence at
the spot has even been admitted by the defence. The primary argument
made by the learned counsel for the appellants is that as Smt. Vishuna was not in a position to see the actual assault on the deceased as she was
in the courtyard whereas the murder had taken place in the shop adjoining
the road, her evidence vis-a-vis the murder has to be discarded. In
addition it has been urged that Manoj Kumar who had conveyed the
information to the informant Chakrapal Singh PW.1 the first informant that
his brother was being assaulted by the accused had not been examined,
the evidence of Chakrapal Singh PW.1 was also not admissible. We find
no merit in either of the pleas. Chakrapal Singh PW.1's evidence is
admissible by virtue of Sec.6 of the Evidence Act being res gestae
evidence.
-2-
P.W.1 clearly stated that when he looked into the shop he found
that the appellant Shankar and Lakhan were holding the deceased by his limbs whereafter the fatal blow in the neck had been given by Meeru the
husband of PW.2 Smt. Vishuna. We have also examined the site plan and
observe that the distance between the place of murder and the place of
injury to Vishuna was only about 25 feet. To our mind there is a clear
possibility that Vishuna was thus aware of the happenings in the shop.
We thus find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.
.................J.
(HARJIT SINGH BEDI)
.................J. (J.M. PANCHAL) New Delhi, July 16, 2009.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free