SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.
Vijay and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1771 of 2009, Criminal Appeal No. 286 of 2010
Decided On : 11-01-2023
Enmity - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302/34 - The judgment discusses the application of Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the interpretation of the evidence provided by a sole eye-witness in a case involving enmity between the witness's family and the accused. The court emphasizes the need for the evidence of a sole witness to be trustworthy, reliable, and cogent in order to base a conviction solely on their testimony.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the conviction of the accused for the murder of the deceased based on the testimony of the deceased's father, who witnessed the incident. The trial court and the High Court convicted the accused, but the Supreme Court found the evidence of the sole witness to be unreliable due to contradictions and doubts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the sole witness was not of sufficient quality to inspire confidence and, therefore, the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Issues: The main issue was the reliability of the testimony of the sole eye-witness and whether it was sufficient to sustain the conviction of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the evidence of a sole witness to be wholly trustworthy, reliable, and cogent in order to base a conviction solely on their testimony.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the judgment and order of conviction and sentencing of the appellants were set aside. The appellants were acquitted of all charges, and their bail bonds were discharged.
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Both these appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 16th September 2008, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 666 of 1999, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the Accused/Appellants, namely Vijay S/o Nirbhay Singh, Babbu @ Nandkishore S/o Ramesh and Mahesh S/o Mohan Singh and upholding the order of conviction and sentence dated 19th April 1999, as recorded by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, M.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) Digitally signed by in Sessions Case No. 459 of 1998 in respect of the appellants herein.
2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeals are as under:
2.2 The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that, on the said information given by PW-5, PW-12 recorded a Dehati Nalishi at the Police Choki and a report was accordingly sent to P.S. MIG for registration of offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and after recording the said information, a First Information Report (“FIR” for short) vide Crime No. 493 of 1998 was registered. It was further the case of the prosecution that, Sayyed Azhar Ali Warsi (PW-9), who was working as the Town Inspector, on receiving the aforesaid information on wireless, proceeded to the place of the incident. When he reached the place of occurrence, he saw the dead body of the deceased and accordingly prepared the Inquest Memo and the Spot Map. He also seized the blood-stained and plain earth along with a white colour shirt and forwarded the dead body of the deceased to the Hospital for post-mortem examination. Dr. P.S. Thakur (PW-11), who performed the autopsy gave a report, which stated that 31 injuries were found on the body of the deceased out of which 08 injuries were stab wounds and the rest were incised wounds.
2.3 The Accused/Appellants were arrested and the clothes along with the murder weapons were seized at their instance. The seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis and a report was accordingly received.
2.4 After the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore which committed the case to the learned Sessions Court which forwarded the same to the learned Trial Court for conducting the trial and deciding over the matter.
2.5 Charges came to be framed by the learned Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
2.6 The prosecution examined 12 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. Their defense was that they were falsely implicated on account of earlier enm
A single witness's testimony can only sustain a conviction if wholly reliable; the presence of multiple hostile witnesses necessitates rigorous evidence scrutiny and adherence to the principle of par....
Conviction on sole eyewitness unreliable due to contradictions in assault manner/place, house layout inconsistency, suspicious family conduct; benefit of doubt where guilt not proved beyond reasonabl....
The judgment establishes that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly when relying on eyewitness testimony, which must be consistent and credible to support a conv....
(1) Conviction could be based on sole testimony of a witness.(2) Conviction of accused only on the basis of conjectures and surmises is not permissible.
A single eyewitness can suffice for conviction if credible, and extra-judicial confessions can be valid evidence if trustworthy.
The judgment underscores the principle that a conviction cannot be based solely on the testimony of a single witness unless it is wholly reliable and corroborated by other evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.