Shivasharanappa and others vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 1366 of 2007 & Jagadevappa and others vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 508 of 2007, Decided on
May 7, 2013
The
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
“the behaviour of witnesses or their reactions
would differ from situation to situation and individual to individual.
Expectation of uniformity in the reaction of witnesses would be unrealistic but
the court cannot be oblivious of the fact that even taking into account the
unpredictability of human conduct and lack of uniformity in human reaction,
whether in the circumstances of the case, the behaviour is acceptably natural
allowing the variations. If the behaviour is absolutely unnatural, the
testimony of the witness may not deserve credence and acceptance. [Para 20]
In
this case the witnesses did not inform the incident of her mother being
forcibly taken away to her grandmother. Trial court did not reply on the
testimony of witness. Hon’ble Supreme Court also came to same conclusion by
holding that:
“In the case at hand,
PW-9 was given a threat when her mother was forcibly taken away but she had the
courage to walk in the night to her grandmother who was in her mid-fifties.
After coming to know about the incident, it defies commonsense that the mother
would not tell her other daughter and the son-in-law about the kidnapping of
the deceased by her mother-in-law. It is interesting to note that the High
Court has ascribed the reason that PW-7 possibly wanted to save the reputation of
the deceased-daughter and that is why she did not inform the other daughter and
son-in-law. That apart, the fear factor has also been taken into consideration.
Definitely, there would have been fear because, as alleged, the mother-in-law
had forcibly taken away the deceased, but it is totally contrary to normal behavior
that she would have maintained a sphinxlike silence and not inform others. It
is also worthy to note that she did not tell it to anyone for almost two days
and it has not been explained why she had thought it apt to search for her
daughter without even informing anyone else in the family or in the village or
without going to the police station. In view of the obtaining fact situation,
in our considered opinion, the learned trial Judge was absolutely justified in
treating the conduct of the said witnesses unnatural and, therefore, felt that
it was unsafe to convict the accused persons on the basis of their testimony.
It was a plausible view and there were no compelling circumstances requiring a
reversal of the judgment of acquittal. True it is, the powers of the appellate
court in an appeal against acquittal are extensive and plenary in nature to
review and reconsider the evidence and interfere with the acquittal, but then
the court should find an absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis of the evidence
on record and not that it can take one more possible or a different view.”
[Para 20]
The
Court also noted the following case laws on the subject:
Gopal
Singh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 6 SCC 407, this Court did
not agree with the High Court which had accepted the statement of an alleged
eye witness as his conduct was unnatural and while so holding, it observed as
follows: -
“We also find that the High Court has accepted the statement
of Feran Singh, PW 5 as the eye witness of the incident ignoring the fact that
his behaviour was unnatural as he claimed to have rushed to the village but had
still not conveyed the information about the incident to his parents and others
present there and had chosen to disappear for a couple of hours on the specious
and unacceptable plea that he feared for his own safety.”
Rana
Partap and others v. State of Haryana (1983) 3 SCC 327, while dealing with the
behaviour of the witnesses, this Court has opined thus: -
“Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way.
Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become
hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for help. Others run away to
keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush to
the rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counterattacking the
assailants. Every one reacts in his own special way. There is no set rule of
natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he
did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly
unrealistic and unimaginative way.”
State
of H.P. v. Mast Ram (2004) 8 SCC 660, it has been stated that there is no set
rule that one must react in a particular way, for the natural reaction of man
is unpredictable. Everyone reacts in his own way and, hence, natural human
behaviour is difficult to prove by credible evidence. It has to be appreciated
in the context of given facts and circumstances of the case.
Similar
view has been reiterated in Lahu Kamlakar Patil and anr. v. State of
Maharashtra 2012 (12) SCALE 710
To see full text follow the link: