1

KIRIT P MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW, MUMBAI

Final Draft Submitted

on

RADHA MOHAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

AIR 2006 SC 951
IN COMPLIANCE TO THE PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE MARKING SCHEME, FOR TRIMESTER 07 OF
2017-18, IN THE SUBJECT OF LAW OF EVIDENCE

SUBMITTED TO: - SUBMITTED BY:-

Prof. RAHUL NIKAM VIDISHA SHARMA

AO45
BA LLB (Hons.)

(THIRD YEAR)

Received by………………. On date: 31.07.17 Time: 1:00 p.m.

On date ……………... Time……..

 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SERIAL NUMBER PARTICULARS PAGE NUMBER

1 STATEMENT OF 3
PROBLEM
2 OBJECTIVE 3
3 RESEARCH 3
QUESTION
4 HYPOTHESIS 3
5 REVIEW OF 4
LITERATURE
6 RESEARCH 4
METHODOLOGY
7 CONTENTIONS 5
8 CONCLUSION 7
9 BIBLIOGRAPHY 8
 3

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The accused Radha Mohan Singh, Kaushal Kishore Singh and some others had assaulted one
Udai Narayan five days before the present incident, of which Ganesh Singh was the eye
witness. His brother deceased Hira Singh who was residing in Kolkata had come to his
village two days before the Holi festival. Radha Mohan Singh and Kaushal Kishore Singh
met the deceased and asked him to forbid his younger brother i.e. Ganesh Singh from giving
evidence against them in the case of Udai Narayan on which he told them that his brother
would give the evidence in the court against them. On the day of the Holi Ganesh Singh and
Hira Singh were going back to their house after Holi Milan Radha Mohan Singh and four
others armed with lathis, spear, knife and farsa assaulted both the brothers, Radha Mohan
Singh assaulted Hira Singh with a spear and other one assaulted him with the knife, Ganesh
Singh and two others who tried to intervene were also assaulted in the same incident. Hira
Singh was seriously injured and was carried on the cot to ‘Bandh’ from where he was taken
to the district hospital. Hira Singh succumbed to his injuries on the next day. The Sessions
court convicted all the accused accordingly under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 302 all read
with section 149 IPC. The decision of the Sessions Court was upheld in the appeal and the
appellants have now appealed in the Supreme Court.

OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH:

 To analyse the validity of the testimony of a hostile witness.

 To analyse the appreciation of the evidence in case where the contents of the Inquest
Report are not properly mentioned.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:
The two main issues were contested in the case which are as follows:

 Whether the Evidence given by the hostile witness to be rejected in totality.

 Whether there can be any conviction when the FIR is anti-timed, no mention of the
names of the accused or the weapons used in the commission of the crime in the
inquest report.

HYPOTHESIS:
 When the FIR is anti-timed it does not permit to draw any inference against the
prosecution.
 Non-mention of the names of the accused or the weapons used in the commission of
the crime in the inquest report does not prove the innocence of the accused.
 4

LITERATURE REVIEW:
The landmark cases relied upon in the judgment are:
1. Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 1976 SC 202: From this case the question
of validity of the testimony of the hostile witness was relied upon. It was held that the
court gave permission to the Prosecutor to cross examine his own witness, thus
characterising him as, what is described as a hostile witness, does not completely
efface his evidence. The evidence remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal
bar to base a conviction upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence.
2. Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh 2003 (2) SCC 518: In the said case the High Court
had observed that the fact that the details about the occurrence were not mentioned in
the inquest report showed that the investigating officer was not sure of the facts when
the inquest report was prepared and the said feature of the case carried weight in
favour of the accused. After noticing the language used in Section 174 Cr.P.C. and
earlier decisions of this Court it was ruled that the High Court was clearly in error in
observing as aforesaid or drawing any inference against the prosecution. Thus, it is
well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the purpose of holding an
inquest is very limited, viz., to ascertain as to whether a person has committed suicide
or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident or
has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person
has committed an offence. There is absolutely no requirement in law of mentioning
the details of the FIR, names of the accused or the names of the eye-witnesses or the
gist of their statement nor it is required to be signed by any eye-witness.

The landmark case which has been relied upon this judgment is:
1. Paramjeet Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2010) 10 SCC 439: In this case the
principle of the validity of the testimony of the hostile witness from the judgment
was relied upon. It was seen that It is well settled that the evidence of a
prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution
chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such
witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the
same can be accepted to the extent his version is found to be dependable on a
careful scrutiny thereof.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The judges concluded the case by relying upon the precedents related to the hostile witnesses
and appreciation of the evidence with respect to the inquest report. With respect to the
testimony of the hostile witnesses the judges solely relied upon the case laws and the section
154 of the Indian Evidence Act. The principle established by the judges in this context is that
the evidence of the hostile witnesses cannot be rejected in totality and can be accepted to the
extent his version if found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. While with respect
to the appreciation of evidence with respect to the inquest report the judges have used the
case laws to establish the principle related to the same. The principle established by the
judges in this context is that the non-mention of the name of an eye-witness, absence of the
 5

name of the accused in the inquest report cannot lead to an inference that the accused is not
guilty. Both the principles derived from this judgment are good precedents and have not been
overruled yet.

CONTENTIONS

The appellants and the respondents have raised many contentions related to CrPC and the
evidence in the present case but two main contentions relating to the law of evidence are as
follows

Whether the evidence given by the hostile witness can be rejected in Toto

Principle: The terms “hostile”, “adverse” or “unfavorable” witness are alien to the Indian
Evidence Act. The terms “hostile witness”, “adverse witness”, “unfavorable witness” are all
terms of the English law. Under the common law a hostile witness is described as one who is
not desirous of telling the truth at the instance of the party to prove such fact, or proves the
opposite test. The permission of the cross examination in terms of section 154 of the
Evidence Act cannot and should not be granted at the mere asking of the party calling the
witness.1 The main principle that was derived from this argument was that the entire evidence
given by a hostile witness cannot be reject in totality and the part of the statement of the
hostile witness that supports the case of the prosecution can always be taken into the
consideration.

Application of the principle: the respondents contended that when the witness has turned as
the hostile the part of the statement that supports the case of the prosecution cannot be totally
negated. The court also felt the same while deciding this judgment. It was observed by the
court that any witness may turn hostile due to the pressure exerted upon him by the accused,
and ay try to support them during the cross examination. The court further said that it is a
well settled that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in totality merely
because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence
of such witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same
can be accepted to the part of his statement that supports the case of the prosecution.

Exceptions to the principle: there are no exceptions to this principle. The principle derived
from the case is still a good precedent and has been used as the precedent in many of the
cases related to the validity of the testimony of the hostile witnesses.

1
S C Sarkar, Indian law of Evidence, (18th ed. 2014)
 6

Whether there can be any conviction when the FIR is anti-timed, no mention of the
names of the accused or the weapons used in the commission of the crime in the inquest
report

Principle: the main principle that is derived in this argument is the appreciation of the
evidence in the inquest report when there is a non-mention of some details in the same and
when the FIR is anti-timed. The principle of the appreciation of evidence can be inferred
from the section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. In a criminal case appreciation of evidence is
one of the first and foremost tests to consider the credibility and reliability of the prosecution
version both oral and documentary. The finding of the facts, the question of law and the
conclusion of the Judges of the Court culminating into the judgments in a criminal case
mainly based on the appreciation of evidence Right from setting the law in motion in a
criminal case by preferring FIR and after completion of investigation filing the final report
ultimately resulting in producing and adducing the evidence before the Court consist varied
kinds of evidence both oral and documentary and the admissibility and reliability of such
evidence should be considered by the Court on the basis of the facts and law for arriving at
the just decision of the case.

Application of the principle: the appellants have raised the contention that the FIR is anti-
timed as per the events of the case as the time of lodging the FIR and Inquest report doesn’t
go hand in hand and due which it clearly shows that the FIR has been wrongly written just to
frame the accused. It was held that the officer holding the inquest mentioned the date of
lodging the FIR inadvertently or by mistake. The appellants also raised the contention that the
names of the accused or the weapons carried by accused and the names of the eye witnesses
had not been mentioned in the inquest report, it clearly showed that by the time the inquest
report had been prepared, viz., 8.30 a.m. on 15.3.79, the prosecution was not sure about its
case and the FIR had not come into existence. It was held by the court that the inquest report
is limited in scope and is confined to ascertainment of apparent cause of death– It is
concerned with discovering whether in a given case the death was accidental, suicidal or
homicidal or caused by animal, and in what manner or by what weapon or instrument the
injuries on the body appear to have been inflicted – Details of overt acts need not be recorded
in inquest report – question regarding details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who
assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted or who were the witness of the
assault is foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under section 174 – No
requirement in law to mention details of FIR names of the accused or the names of
eyewitnesses or the gist of their statements in inquest report, nor is the said report required to
be signed by any eyewitness.

Exceptions to the principle: there are no exceptions to this principle. The principle derived
from the case is still a good precedent and has been used as the precedent in many of the
cases related to the object of the inquest report.
 7

CONCLUSION:
The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the High Court and the Sessions Court. In the
majority of the contentions the court felt that there was no need for the re-appreciation of the
evidence but with regards to the validity of the hostile witness the court has clearly specified
that the evidence of the hostile witnesses cannot be rejected in toto. While with regards to the
FIR being anti-timed and the non-mention of the names of the accused in the inquest report
does not mean that the accused is innocent or it is a valid ground to draw an inference against
the prosecution and thus, the hypothesis stands correct.
 8

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books Used
1. S C Sarkar, Indian law of Evidence, (18th ed. 2014)

Database Used
1. Lexis-Nexis
2. Manupatra
3. Westlaw