1994 Supreme(SC) 339

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. Anand and Faizan Uddin, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 700 of 1980
Decided On: 15.03.1994
Marwadi Kishor Parmanand and Anr. Appellants
Vs.
State of Gujarat Respondent
Counsel for the Parties
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: B.K. Mehta, Senior Adv., Reema Bhandari and K.V. Sreekumar, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: R.N. Sachthey, Senior Adv., Anip Sachthey and S.K. Sabharwal, Advs.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302/34 , 134 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 378 and 386 – Appeal against conviction – Murder Case -Relevant time was a Government Contractor and two deceased persons namely who were known to him were also engaged in contract business - Deceased were interested in securing contract from Saurashtra Chemicals for removal of dust and in that connection they had approached complainant to ascertain whether he too was interested in same - It is said that a sum of was deposited by deceased persons through a Bank draft with Saurashtra Chemicals but no final deal was struck in their favour till - Complainant accompanied with two deceased persons came to Porbandaf from Junagarh at about and met an officer of Saurashtra Chemicals in his office - There they discussed with him terms and conditions but contract was still not finalised - It is said that a car belonging to old contractor whose contract work with Saurashtra Chemicals was going on was parked outside gate of company but there was not one in car - Complainant Ranchhodbhai along with two deceased left Saurashtra Chemicals at about and proceeded on a Rickshaw to Sudama Chowk and from there they proceeded on foot towards Ghayal Lodge to take meals there - While so proceeding towards Ghayal Lodge they passed from Liberty Talkies road to a narrow Lane and from there to a broader lane at end of which there was a road - According to complainant when they came out of broader lane two appellants came on a scooter from opposite direction which they stopped and parked near them - It is alleged that both appellants got down from scooter with open knives in their hands and rushed towards - One of appellants and another and asked them as to why they were coming in their way - Deceased offered to withdraw from contract if appellants were interested in same - It is said that contract in which deceased were interested was given to & Co. and one had an interest in same and since appellants were not only related to but they were themselves partners in & Co and therefore they were not happy with deceased who were trying to obtain said contract - Whether he too was interested in same - Whether High Court while reversing order of acquittal has acted within judicial constraints and principles stated above - Whether High Court on reappraisal of testimony of sole eye-witness and other material on record has acted within constraints and principles laid down by this Court with regard to reassessment of evidence and was justified in interferring with order of acquittal - Whether they had taken any notice to same or not - Whether both appellants came together to hospital is not very much material but there is positive evidence that they were in hospital during period complaint of was being recorded and - Whether telephonic message was conveyed from phone is not so much material as message itself and in view of evidence of and Head Constable it can hardly be said that no telephonic message was conveyed by - Held,Indian Legislature has not inisted on laying down any such exceptions to general rule recognised in Section 134 quoted above - Section enshrines well recognised maxim that Evidence has to be weighed had not counted - Our Legislature has given statutory recognition to fact that administration of justice may be hampered if a particular number of witnesses were to be insisted upon - It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in presence of only one witness leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence - If Legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses cases where testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of crime would go unpunished - It is here that discretion of presiding judge comes into play - Matter must depend upon circumstances of each case and quality of evidence of single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected - If such a testimony is found by Court to be entirely reliable there is no legal impediment to conviction of accused person on such proof - Even as guilt of an accused person may be proved by testimony of a single witness innocence of an accused person may be established on testimony of a single witness even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify truth of case for prosecution - Hence in Court opinion it is a sound and well established rule of law that court is concerned with quality and not with quantity of evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact - Appeal Dismissed