IMPORTANT POINTS
Conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye-witness and there is no rule of law or evidence which says to the contrary provided the sole witness passes the test of reliability.
Suspicious conduct of the accused strengthens prosecution’s case.

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.—

1.State of Rajasthan is in appeal against the judgment of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur. Respondent faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) and sentence of imprisonment for life by learned Additional Sessions Judge Nagaur. Accused filed an appeal questioning his conviction and sentence imposed. The High Court by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal.

2.Background facts in a nutshell are as follows :

First Information Report was lodged in the Police Station, Khinvsar on 14.5.1992 by one Nenuram, stating that at about 11.00 a.m., on that day, he heard that accused Om Prakash has killed Shivpyari, his wife (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), due to old quarrel. The investigation was conducted. The accused was arrested and the prosecution commenced. The prosecution examined 22 witnesses during the trial to prove its case alongwith certain documents which were duly proved. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the accused had committed murder punishable under Section 302 IPC and, therefore, proceeded to punish him to suffer imprisonment for life as aforesaid.

3.Trial Court placed reliance on the evidence of Om Prakash-PW-1 and found his evidence to be cogent and clear and recorded conviction and sentence as indicated above.

4.An appeal was filed before the High Court. Stand of the appellant was that the order of conviction is unsustainable in law as conclusion of guilt is not supported by the evidence on record. The entire conviction is rested upon the sole testimony of an interested witness, who is younger brother of the deceased Shivpyari and the corroboration which is sought to be used for supporting the testimony of PW 1 Om Prakash is the recovery of blood stained knife and clothes at the instance of the accused. The delay caused in lodging the First Information Report was not satisfactorily explained. The explanation for the so-called delay does not over rule out the possibility of concoction of the entire case against the accused, the investigation is very faulty and the evidence, as is accepted by the learned trial Judge, is not sufficient to safely convict the accused of murder. The evidence admits of reasonable explanation which can exclude the participation of the accused and in such circumstances, conviction on such evidence is not legal and proper. Police visited the scene of occurrence immediately on the receipt of the First Information Report and had seen the premises. The accused was arrested thereafter and then, it is alleged that at his instance, the blood stained knife and clothes were recovered. Possibility of planation of these articles cannot be over ruled. The Investigating Officer has committed a blunder in not connecting the knife to the accused. Assuming that the knife and clothes were discovered at the instance of the accused, mere discovery is not enough, unless the knife, connected to the accused, is shown to have been used by him. The police could have ascertained the finger prints from the knife and could have either proved or excluded use of the knife by the accused. Failure on the part of the prosecution is a serious lacuna, which raises a reasonable doubt regarding involvement of the accused and, therefore, the evidence, as is accepted, is grossly in-sufficient for sustaining the order of conviction.

5.However, the primary stand was that on the basis of a solitary witnesses’ evidence, conviction cannot be recorded; more particularly, when he is related to the deceased. The High Court accepted the plea and held that in case of solitary witness, and when he is related to the deceased, corroboration is a must.

6.In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the State submitted that the evidence of PW-1 clearly established the commission of offence by the respondent. There is no reason