Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
Joy Devaraj – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2013
Decided on : 08-07-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 143, 147 and 148 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 103(1), 189(2), 191(2) and 191(3)] – Murder, unlawful assembly and rioting – Life sentence – During commission of attack leading to crime, there were fifteen people forming part of unlawful assembly – Appellant was required to demonstrate that incongruities in statements of several eye witnesses shook roots of their credibility – Threshold for disbelieving a witness is not mere discrepancy or inconsistency but material discrepancy and inconsistency, which renders account narrated by witnesses so highly improbable that same may safely be discarded altogether from consideration – Appellant was part of an unlawful assembly which gathered at place of occurrence – Although, there are a few inconsistencies in testimonies of witnesses but same are minor and not substantial – While it is settled law that a witness cannot be disbelieved on sole ground of him turning hostile, hostility of PW4 does not particularly dent prosecution’s case – Prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that appellant was the person who stabbed victim in his chest leading to his death – Death caused by a single stab wound can also be considered murder if requirements of Section 300, IPC are fulfilled – Impugned Judgment warrants no interference. (Paras 15, 16,18, 20, 23, 25, 26 and 27)
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 134 [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 139] – Number of witnesses – No particular number of witnesses is required, in any case, to prove a fact – It is not the law that conviction cannot be recorded unless there is oral testimony of at least two witnesses matching with each other – It is quality of evidence and not quantity that matters – If evidence of a solitary witness appeals to court to be wholly reliable, same can form foundation for recording conviction. (Para 17)
Facts of the case:
Impugned judgment upheld conviction of appellant by Sessions Court under Sections 143, 147, 148, and 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and life sentence together with fine.
Findings of Court:
Appellant’s submission that only one of eight injuries sustained by victim is grievous and rest are simple and hence there is no intention to cause death, cannot be accepted after examining facts of the case.
Result : Criminal Appeal dismissed.
Key Points: - The threshold for disbelieving a witness is material discrepancy and inconsistency that renders the account highly improbable (!) - A murder can be constituted by a single stab wound if the requirements of Section 300, IPC are fulfilled and the intended cause of death is established (!) (!) - No fixed number of witnesses is required; quality of evidence matters and a solitary reliable witness can form the basis of conviction (!)
JUDGMENT :
Dipankar Datta, J.
1. This criminal appeal, by special leave, calls in question the judgment and order dated 28th September, 2011 of the Kerala High Court1[High Court, hereafter] dismissing the appellant’s appeal2[Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2007] under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The impugned judgment upheld the conviction of the appellant by the Sessions Court, Thalassery3[Sessions Court, hereafter] under sections 143, 147, 148, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”, hereafter) and, inter alia, the sentence of imprisonment for life together with fine.
2. Bare reading of the impugned judgment reveals that the appellant, who was part of an unlawful assembly, murdered Bobby4[“victim”, hereafter] in the evening of 26th December, 1999 due to a dispute which arose on 24th December, 1999 between Sufras @ Rinku5[“A4”, hereafter] and Bennet Ignatius6[“PW5”, hereafter]. Since we are considering this appeal which is at the instance of the appellant, being accused no.1, the discussion in this judgment is proposed to be confined to the role of the appellant only; however, the role of the other accused may be discussed tangentially, if required.
3. The sequence of events preceding the death of the victim, according to the prosecution case, reveals that the victim and PW5 were members of an ‘Anti-Liquor Movement’. They attempted to persuade the public to give up drinking alcohol. On 24th December, 1999, PW5 got into an altercation with A4 who allegedly was an illicit liquor vendor. The victim had supported PW5 in that altercation and, thus, had a run-in with A4. During the course of the argument, A4 had threatened the victim with danger to his life and this, according to the prosecution, formed the genesis for the attack on the victim in the evening of 26th December 1999. On that day, Dikson Jerry7[“PW1”, hereafter] was standing near the victim’s house with K.T. Varghese8[“PW2”, hereafter] and Byju9[“CW2”, hereafter]. At this time, the victim was standing on the street, at a distance of about 5 metres from PW1, talking to K.R. Rainold Suresh10[PW3] and Jerry Mariyadas11[PW6], when Renjith T.M. 12[“PW4”, hereafter] arrived on his scooter and joined the group of the victim. Around 7:40 PM, all the accused persons including the appellant armed with deadly weapons were seen approaching the victim. Sensing danger, the victim tried to flee on PW4’s scooter but the scooter was cut off immediately. The appellant, armed with a dagger, grabbed the victim, and pulled him to the ground and proceeded to stab him with the dagger on the left side of his lower chest. The other accused persons hit the victim with hockey sticks. Further, after the conclusion of the attack on the victim, the accused while retreating hurled a bomb at the door of PW1’s house. PW1, PW2 and CW2 rushed the victim to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
4. An F.I.R. 13[No. 131 of 1999] under sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 302 r/w 149 of IPC was registered at the behest of PW1 at around 22:45 PM at Kannur City Police Station. Investigation of the F.I.R. culminated in filing of charge-sheet against 15 (fifteen) accused persons and committal of the case to the Sessions Court where it was registered as Sessions Case No.201/2002. The accused persons stood trial whereupon the Sessions Court vide its judgment and order14[dated 13th December 2006 in Sessions Case No. 201/2002] found, inter alia, the appellant guilty of murder and sentenced him to life in prison under section 302, IPC. The co-accused were found guilty of lesser crimes and suitably sentenced.
5. The appellant has disputed the prosecution case and questioned the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel appearing on his behalf has presented the following arguments:
(1) Threshold for disbelieving a witness is not mere discrepancy or inconsistency but material discrepancy and inconsistency, which renders account narrated by witnesses so highly improbable that sam....
The court's decision in this case highlights the importance of analyzing the relevant provisions of the IPC and applying them to the facts of the case in order to determine the nature of the offense ....
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Rinkesh Goyal For the Respondent : Ajeet Singh Bhadoriya, Rajeev Upadhyay
The Court upheld the life imprisonment conviction under Section 302 IPC, affirming the case as murder due to the absence of sudden provocation and corroborative evidence supporting the eyewitness's t....
The appellate court emphasized that minor discrepancies in eyewitness testimony do not undermine overall reliability, and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony and established common intention among the accused.
The court reaffirmed that intention and the nature of injuries are critical in distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide under IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, including the presence of a clear motive and cre....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
