2008 Supreme(SC) 18

2008(1) Supreme 82
Supreme Court of india
Ramesh Krishna Madhusudan Nayar — Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 12 of 2008
Decided on 07-01-2008

Important Points
Conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness if he is wholly reliable.
For bringing in operation of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, it has to be established that act was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual Manner.

Headnote:Indian penal code, 1860 – Section 302 - Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 134 - Prosecution of accused for causing death of deceased by inflicting two blows on his head by a wooden log – Altercation took place between parties, staff members of a hotel on point of switching off lights – Incident was witnessed by complainant – Complainant and hotel owner went to Police Station and reported matter to police – Conviction by Trial Court relying upon evidence of pw5 eyewitness – Appeal – Dismissed by High Court - Appeal there against on plea that conviction could not have been recorded solely on testimony of one alleged eye-witness PW-5 – Held on a question whether on basis of a solitary evidence conviction can be maintained, a bare reference to Section 134 of Evidence Act, 1872 would suffice - Provision clearly states that no particular number of witnesses is required to establish the case - Conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness if he is wholly reliable - Corroboration may be necessary when said witness 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)

       Indian penal code, 1860 – Section 302 - Prosecution of accused for causing death of deceased by inflicting two blows on his head by a wooden log – Altercation took place between parties, staff members of a hotel on point of switching off lights – Incident was witnessed by complainant – Complainant and hotel owner went to Police Station and reported matter to police – Conviction by Trial Court - Appeal – Dismissed by High Court - Appeal there against on plea that Section 302 IPC had no application to facts of case in view of factual scenario highlighted – Appellants case that since in course of a sudden quarrel incident happened Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC would be Applicable - For bringing in operation of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, it has to be established that act was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual Manner - Considering factual background of present case held that inevitable conclusion was that appropriate conviction would be under Section 304 Part I, IPC and not Section 302 IPC.(Paras 8 to 12)

       (JT 2004 (6) SC 299), (JT 2004 (6) SC 302), (JT 2004 (8) SC 534), [2006(4) SCC 653] and [2006 (10) SCC 524] relied upon.

       Facts of the case:-

       1.Accused was prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of deceased by inflicting two blows on his head by a wooden log. As per prosecution case altercation took place between parties, staff members of a hotel on point of switching off lights. Incident was witnessed by complainant. Complainant and hotel owner went to Police Station and reported matter to police. Trial Court convicted Accused relying upon evidence of pw5, an eyewitness. Appeal there against was dismissed by High Court.

       2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court on plea that conviction could not be based on solitary evidence of a eyewitness and that since in course of a sudden quarrel incident happened Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC would be Applicable.

       Findings of the Court :

       The Court held that Section 134 of Evidence Act, 1872 clearly states that no particular number of witnesses is required to establish a case. Conviction can be based on the testimony of a 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. It was further held that for bringing in operation of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, it has to be established that act was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual Manner. Considering factual background of present case held that inevitable conclusion was that appropriate conviction would be under Section 304 Part I, IPC and not Section 302 IPC.

       Result: Appeal allowed partly.