The testimony of an eye-witness who is a stranger to the accused generally requires corroboration, especially when the identification is made after a long interval of time.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - CONVICTION - CORROBORATION OF EVIDENCE OF EYE-WITNESSES - IDENTIFICATION PARADE - RELIABILITY - TESTIMONY OF DRIVER OF DECEASED - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
Fact of the Case:

Four appellants were convicted of murder and sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge, Anantapur Division. They were also convicted under other Sections and awarded varying punishments. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the appeals of the four appellants, while allowing the appeal of one of the accused. The appellants challenged the conviction and sentence in the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the evidence of the driver of the deceased, who was an eye-witness, was admissible but required corroboration due to his possible bias. The court found that the identification of two of the accused by other eye-witnesses was unreliable due to inconsistencies and errors in the identification parade. However, the court upheld the conviction of the remaining two accused as their identification was corroborated by reliable evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of the driver of the deceased was admissible and reliable. 2. Whether the identification of the accused by other eye-witnesses was reliable. 3. Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to corroborate the testimony of the eye-witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence of the driver of the deceased was admissible but required corroboration due to his possible bias. The court relied on the principle that the testimony of an eye-witness who is a stranger to the accused generally requires corroboration, especially when the identification is made after a long interval of time. 2. The court found that the identification of two of the accused by other eye-witnesses was unreliable due to inconsistencies and errors in the identification parade. The court noted that the witnesses had picked out more suspects than the actual number of assailants, which raised doubts about the accuracy of their identification. 3. The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to corroborate the testimony of the eye-witnesses in the case of the remaining two accused. The court considered factors such as the motive for the attack, the presence of the accused in the company of the other assailants before and after the incident, and the movements of the jeep used by the assailants.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of two of the accused and ordered their acquittal. The appeals of the remaining two accused were dismissed.

Judgment

WANCHOO, J. : The four appellants and one other were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Anantapur Division, under S. 302, Indian Penal Code, read with S. 34 and were sentenced to death. They were also convicted under other Sections and awarded varying punishments. All five preferred separate appeals to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. One appeal was allowed while the appeals of the four appellants were dismissed. By special leave; these four appellants filed the present appeal against the judgment of the High Court.

2. Shortly stated, the prosecution case is as follows : In Chippagiri village, Anantapur District, there were bitter quarrels occurring between members of two factions, for convenience described as Reddy group and Kamma group. The former was led by one Virupaksha Reddy and the latter by accused A-1 to A-3. There were several criminal cases between the members of the two groups and despite the sincere attempt of Acharya Vinoba Bhave to settle their disputes, though there was a short respite, the factious spirit received a further impetus by the impact of Panchayat Board elections in the village. On account of these quarrels the appellants, along with four others, on getting information that Virupaksha Reddy would be returning from Isurallapalli, to which place he had gone to attend a seminar of Bharat Sevak Samaj, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of murdering the said Reddy, and went in a jeep No. ADQ 1243 armed with sickles, spears and daggers. They placed the jeep near Bandrakalva culvert at mile-stone 201/3 on Gooty-Guntakal Road and forced the jeep No. ADQ 273 in which Virupaksha Reddy was travelling to stop and dragged Virupaksha Reddy out of the jeep and hacked him to death in a pit nearby.

3. The evidence against the appellants was both direct and circumstantial. The direct evidence consisted of the statements of three eye-witnesses, namely, P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3. Of these, P. W. 3 was the driver of the deceased and knew the eight assailants from before. P. Ws. 1 and 2 were apparently disinterested witnesses who did not know any of the assailants from before and in their case an identification parade was held. The circumstantial evidence consisted of the motive for the attack, the fact that the accused were seen in the company of one another before and after the incident and also the fact that they were seen in the jeep ADQ 1243, the movements of which were traced before and after the incident. The main evidence on which the learned Sessions Judge relied was the testimony of the three eye-witnesses. He was of the view that the driver (P. W. 3), though he was present when the murder took place and knew the assailants from before, was not a disinterested witness. He was not, however, prepared to reject his testimony completely; at the same time he was not prepared to rely on his testimony alone for the conviction of the eight accused before him, and that was why he acquitted three of the accused though they were named by the driver. The view he took was that safety lay in looking for corroboration of the testimony of the driver and in that connection he relied mainly on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and the corroboration available from the circumstantial evidence. In the result he convicted the four appellants and one other.

4. The High Court also took the same view of the evidence of the driver and was prepared to rely on it provided corroboration was available. The High Court found this corroboration in the statements of the other two eye-witnesses, namely, P. Ws. 1 and 2, so far as the present four appellants were concerned. It gave the benefit of doubt to the fifth accused convicted by the Sessions Judge, because there was no corroboration of the driver by P. Ws. 1 and 2 in so far as that accused was concerned and the corroboration available from the circumstantial evidence was not considered sufficient. In the result, therefore, the High Court also sought corroboration of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document