IMPORTANT POINT
Conviction of an accused can be based on the evidence of solitary witness only if it is reliable.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 498A, 302 and 201-Conviction of appellants under-Upheld by High Court-Appeal to Supreme Court-Conviction based on mainly relying upon the evidence of PW3 Mela Ram, a neighbour-PW3 giving contradictory statements-Earlier of burn injuries by accidental fire-Later stating it to be suicide and burning of the bodies thereafter-Whether any reliance can be placed on PW3 s evidence? (No)-Result-Appeal allowed.
       Held : It will thus appear from the record that though this witness in the course of enquiry under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stated before PW10. ASI Sharma that the deceased had died on account of burn injuries suffered in an accidental fire, his subsequent statement recorded at 6.30 p.m. on the same day is at variance with his earlier statement and gives a completely different picture. In his subsequent statement Ext. P.4 he claims to have gone to the house of Jagdish at his request and found that the two dead bodies were hanging from the hook with rope around their necks and that on account of harassment by the appellants, Rukma had committed suicide. Even in his subsequent statement he did not allege that the appellants had killed either Rukma or his daughter Munni and at best an allegation was made that Rukma had committed suicide. (Para 14)
       The two versions given by Mala Ram are so much at variance with each other that they cannot be reconciled, the first version supporting the case of death by accidental fire and the second supporting the case of suicide and burning of the bodies thereafter. (Para 15)
       The medical evidence is consistent with the defence case that the deceased died of burning in an accidental fire, but the same is not consistent with the version given by Mala Ram, PW.3 that their dead bodies were set ablaze later. If it were so, the injuries found could not have been ante mortem injuries, and the presence of sooty carbon particles would not have been found in larynx, trachea, pharynx and esophagus. (Para 16)
       Consequently held : We are, therefore, of the view that the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. Accordingly the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High Court appealed against is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Appellant No.2 Jagdish is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged Appellant No.1 is in jail. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. (Para 17)

JUDGMENT

B.P. Singh, J.-This appeal by special leave has been preferred by the two appellants namely, Sadhu Ram, appellant No.1 and Jagdish, appellant No. 2 Sadhu Ram is the son of Jagdish. They alongwith one Narain (since acquitted) were put up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nimkathana (Sikar) in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1997 charged variously under Sections 498A, 302, 201 and 436 I.P.C. for the murder of Rukma, wife of Sadhu Ram and Munni, daughter of Sadhu Ram who was about 8 months old at the time of occurrence. The Trial Court, while acquitting Narain of the charges levelled against him, found appellant Sadhu Ram guilty of offence under Sections 498A and 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/- under Section 498A I.P.C. in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment, and life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 302. I.P.C. in default to undergo two years simple imprisonment. Jagdish was found guilty of the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to undergo two years simple imprisonment.

2. The High Court has upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants recorded by the trial court mainly relying upon the evidence of PW-3, Mala Ram, a neighbour who lodged the F.I.R. on the basis of which this case was investigated. It was fairly submitted before us by the counsel for the parties that apart from the evidence of PW-3, Mala Ram, no other witness had seen the occurrence and there is no evidence to corroborate the testimony of PW-3, Mala Ram though large number of witnesses were examined. The case of the prosecution rests entirely only on the evidence Mala Ram. PW-3.

3. In this background the facts not in dispute may be noticed. The appellant Sadhu Ram was married to Rukma (deceased) about 3-1/2 or 4 years before the occurrence. They had a child Munni who was about 8 months old on the date of occurrence. On November 22, 1996 at about 4.00 a.m. the appellant, Jagdish lodged a report before the Station House Officer, police station Nimkathana stating therein that at about 2.15 a.m. in the night while his son Sadhu Ram alongwith his wife. Rukma and his daughter aged about 8 months was sleeping in the house, suddenly a fire broke out and Rukma and her daughter Munni were burnt to death. His son Sadhu Ram was married to Rukma 4 years ago. This report has been marked as Ex.P-9. The Station House Officer, police station, Nimkathana treating the report as one under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recorded Case No. 20 of 1996 and informed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate about the occurrence and requested him to prepare an inquest panchnama of the dead bodies under Section 176 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate proceeded to the place of occurrence to enquire into the cause of death and prepared the inquest panchnama in the presence of Phulchand, PW-4 and Ganpat Ram Saini, PW-5 neighbours of the appellants, Bugla Ram, brother of the deceased and two other witnesses who hove not been examined. The panchnama also records the fact that Jagdish, the father-in-law of deceased Rukma and Bahadur, father of deceased Rukma were also present. From the inquest report prepared by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate it is apparent that the bodies were almost completely burnt up and apparently it appeared to be a case of death in accidental fire.

4. In the course of enquiry under Section 176 Cr.P.C. the statement of Mala Ram, PW.3 was also recorded in which he stated that he was in his field when the fire broke out in the village. He rushed to the place of occurrence where many villagers had assembled. The appellants put off the fire but the wife of Sadhu Ram and his daughter were burnt to death. On inquiry, he came to learn that at about 2-2-30 a.m. while they were sleeping in the house a fire broke out all of a sudden, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 450

IMPORTANT POINTConviction of an accused can be based on the evidence of solitary witness only if it is reliable.

IMPORTANT POINT
Conviction of an accused can be based on the evidence of solitary witness only if it is reliable.