1. Murder trial — Conviction under Sections 302/34, IPC — Appeal against concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court based on sole eye-witness testimony. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 1239
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
Important Points
Conviction based on a solitary witness requires the testimony to be wholly trustworthy, reliable, and cogent. Where such testimony contains material contradictions and previous enmity exists, the possibility of false implication arises, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt.
Subject
Criminal Law - Evidence and Witnesses
Act Referred
Headnote
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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradeep Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Lal Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Umesh Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Arjun Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Bhaskar Aditya, Adv. Mr. Vishal Singh, Adv. Ms. N. Annapoorani, AOR Mr. Sushil Kr. Jain, Sr. Adv. Ms. Christi Jain, Adv. Mr. Pramod Nair, Adv. Mr. Yogit Kamat, Adv. Ms. Shruti Singh, Adv. Ms. Akriti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Umang Mehta, Adv. Mr. Harsh Jain, Adv. Mr. Bijan Kumar Ghosh, AOR Ms. Pragati Neekhra, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Ms. Soumya Priyadarshinee, Adv. Mr. Ankit Ambasta, Adv. Mr. Ankit Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Amlaan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradeep Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Lal Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Umesh Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Arjun Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Bhaskar Aditya, Adv. Mr. Vishal Singh, Adv. Ms. N. Annapoorani, AOR Mr. Sushil Kr. Jain, Sr. Adv. Ms. Christi Jain, Adv. Mr. Pramod Nair, Adv. Mr. Yogit Kamat, Adv. Ms. Shruti Singh, Adv. Ms. Akriti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Umang Mehta, Adv. Mr. Harsh Jain, Adv. Mr. Bijan Kumar Ghosh, AOR Ms. Pragati Neekhra, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Ms. Soumya Priyadarshinee, Adv. Mr. Ankit Ambasta, Adv. Mr. Ankit Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Amlaan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Sustainability of conviction based on the sole testimony of a witness alleged to be contradictory versus the reliability of concurrent findings by lower courts. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Testimony of the sole eye-witness contained material contradictions regarding visibility and presence at the scene, failing to inspire confidence given the admitted previous enmity. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
4. Conviction based on a solitary witness requires the testimony to be wholly trustworthy, reliable, and cogent, especially where previous enmity suggests potential false implication. (Para 10 , 20 )
5. Appeals allowed — Conviction and sentence set aside — Appellants acquitted of all charges. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
6. Can a criminal conviction be based on the testimony of a single eye-witness?
Yes, a conviction can be based on the evidence of a solitary witness, provided that the testimony is found to be wholly trustworthy, reliable, and cogent. (Para 10 , 20 )
7. How does previous enmity between the accused and the complainant influence the court's evaluation of evidence?
Previous enmity is viewed as a double-edged weapon; while it can establish a motive for the crime, it also introduces the possibility of false implication of the accused. (Para 10 )
8. What is the legal consequence when the sole eye-witness's testimony contains material contradictions?
If the sole witness's testimony lacks the quality to inspire confidence in the court due to material contradictions, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 )
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:
2.1 On 2nd August 1998, Narendra Singh Bais (PW-12), posted at the Police Out Post, Vijay Nagar, under Police Station, MIG, was informed that a person had been done to death by stabbing and causing cut wounds in Meghdoot Garden and Prem Narain (PW-5) had given a Dehati Report with regards to the said incident. In the said Report, he had stated that he was a resident of Ramnagar and about 03 months before the date of the aforesaid incident, his elder son, Jagdish (the brother of the deceased) was beaten by the Accused/Appellants Babbu @ Nandkishore, Vijay, Naresh, and Deepak and a Report to that extent was also lodged at P.S. Hiranagar, and ever since the said incident, the accused persons were harboring enmity against the brother of the deceased. On the date of the incident, the younger son of PW-5, i.e. Dharmendra (deceased) had gone for a walk in the Meghdoot Garden and had not returned by 8.30 PM; when PW-5 went to look for him in the said garden, he saw that the Accused/Appellants Babbu, Vijay and Mahesh were stabbing the deceased with knives. When he shouted for help, the accused persons fled away; following which, he found a large number of injuries that had been caused to the deceased which resulted in his death.
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
