IMPORTANT POINT
Conviction can be based on testimony of single witness if he is wholly reliable and corroboration may be necessary when he is only partially reliable.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302/34-Conviction under-Solitary eye witness-Can be sustained if witness is wholly reliable-Corroboration may be necessary when he is only partially reliable.
       Held : Coming to the question whether on the basis of a solitary evidence conviction can be maintained. A bare reference of Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the Evidence Act ) would suffice. The provision clearly states that no particular number of witnesses is required to establish the case. Conviction can be based on the testimony of single witness if he is wholly reliable. Corroboration may be necessary when he is only partially reliable. If the evidence is unblemished and beyond all possible criticism and the Court is satisfied that the witness was speaking the truth then on his evidence alone conviction can be maintained. (Para 7)
       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302/34-Conviction under-Injuries on body of accused persons-Mere non explanation cannot be a foundation for discarding prosecution version when eye witness is found to be truthful.
       Held : Undisputedly, there were injuries found on the body of the accused persons on medical evidence. That per se cannot be a ground to totally discard the prosecution version. This is a factor which has to be weighed along with other materials to see whether the prosecution version is reliable, cogent and trustworthy. When the case of the prosecution is supported by an eyewitness who is found to be truthful, as well, mere non-explanation of the injuries on the accused persons cannot be a foundation for discarding the prosecution version. (Para 7)
       (iii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302/34-Conviction under-Plea of right of private defence-It has to be established that accused were under such grave apprehension about safety of their life and property that retaliation to extent done was absolutely necessary. (Para 8)
       (iv) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 299 and 300-Culpable homicide and murder-Difference between clause (b) of Section 299 and clause (3) of Section 300 is one of degree of probability of death resulting from intended bodily injury-It is degree of probability of death which determines whether culpable homicide is of gravest, medium or lowest degree. (Paras 12 and 19)
       (v) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302/34-Appellants four in number assaulted deceased with handles of axe and spade and iron rod-A4 had lighted the torch which enable other accused to focus assault on deceased-Conviction of A4 with help of Section 34 IPC suffered no illegality-Only one injury on head, which could not be attributed to specific accused, was the fatal injury-Appellants were liable to be convicted u/s 304 Part I IPC and sentence of 10 years imprisonment awarded. (Para 22)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. The four appellants faced trial for allegedly having caused homicidal death of one Kuttappan (hereinafter referred to as the deceased ) on 16.6.1994. They were tried for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ). The learned Sessions Judge, Kottayam, found all the four accused persons guilty and convicted and sentenced them for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. Fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation was also imposed. The accused-appellants unsuccessfully challenged their conviction and sentence before the Kerala High Court which dismissed the same by the impugned judgment.

3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:

There was previous enmity between accused persons and the deceased. In furtherance of their common intention because of such enmity, the accused persons chased and assaulted the deceased on 16.6.1994 at about 11 p.m. A-2 beat the deceased with an iron rod on his back and when deceased ran away to save his life, all the accused persons chased him and near a road side junction, A-4 lighted the torch carried by him which enabled the other accused persons to beat the deceased with handles of axe and spade, and iron rod on different parts of the body. The injuries were caused mostly on the hands, legs and ribs. Only one injury was inflicted on the head which was the fatal injury. Though the deceased was taken to the hospital he breathed his last at about 2.25 a.m. on 17.6.1994. 10 witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version. Rajan (PW-2) was said to be an eyewitness. The information was lodged with the police by Anil Kumar (PW-1). Soman (PW-3) was the brother-in-law of the deceased who was informed about the quarrel between deceased and the accused persons. The deceased allegedly made a dying declaration before them implicating the accused persons. The accused persons pleaded innocence. They pleaded that the actual occurrence was suppressed by the prosecution and, in fact, the deceased attacked them and caused injuries on A-1 and A-2. Since the accused persons were attacked, they exercised their right of private defence and tried to protect themselves and if on account of that the deceased sustained injuries there was no offence involved. Trial Court after analyzing the evidence on record came to hold that the plea of right of private defence was not established. A-1 to A-4 were the authors of the crime. It also did not accept the contention of A-4 that no overt act was attributed to him and there was no material to bring him within the field of Section 34 IPC. The Trial court held that evidence of PW-2 inspire confidence. He was a reliable witness and on his evidence alone the conviction has to be recorded, though additionally the dying declaration was there.

4. In appeal, the Kerala High Court held that merely because the accused persons have sustained some injuries, that cannot ipso facto be a ground for throwing out the prosecution case. Non-explanation of injuries on the accused persons in all cases is not a ground for discarding the prosecution version. It also did not find any substance in the plea of the accused-appellants that on the basis of solitary witness s evidence conviction cannot be recorded. Finally, the plea that offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was not made out did not find acceptance by the High Court. It also did not accept the plea that there was no material for applying Section 34 to A-4. It was noticed that he was the person who focused the light on the deceased, facilitating the assaults.

5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court and the High Court have lost sight of relevant factors. The prosecution version itself indicated that there was quarrel between the deceased and t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 77

IMPORTANT POINTConviction can be based on testimony of single witness if he is wholly reliable and corroboration may be necessary when he is only partially reliable.

Cases Referred (4)

IMPORTANT POINT
Conviction can be based on testimony of single witness if he is wholly reliable and corroboration may be necessary when he is only partially reliable.