1. Appellant contends conviction is unsustainable as the High Court disbelieved the sole witness regarding co-accused but relied on the same witness to convict the appellant. (Para 5 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1183
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
George – Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Tamil Nadu And Others – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 5902 of 2021)
Decided On : 13-12-2024
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(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.
(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.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 294(b), 341 and 302 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 296]b), 126(2) and 103(1)] – Obscene acts, wrongful restraint and murder – Conviction and sentence – Conviction could be based on sole testimony of a witness – Equally, principle that falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in Indian criminal jurisprudence – However, in present case, on the basis of sole testimony of same witness appellant has been convicted and other two accused, involved in same incident have been acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt – Merely because a witness is an interested witness, it cannot be a ground to discard testimony of such a witness – However, testimony of such a witness has to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection – Recovery of was made from an open place accessible to one and all – As such, only on the basis of circumstance of such a recovery, conviction could not have been based – Conviction of accused only on the basis of conjectures and surmises is not permissible – High Court has grossly erred in convicting appellant while giving benefit of doubt to co-accused – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court quashed and set aside. (Paras 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17)
Facts of the case:
Division Bench of High Court upheld conviction and sentence qua appellant insofar as offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 341 and 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 but he was acquitted of charge under Section 506(ii) IPC.
Findings of Court:
Appellant is acquitted of all charges levelled against him and is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S. Nagamuthu,Sr.Adv. Ms. D. Durga Devi,Adv. Mr. Pranab Prakash, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. N.R. Elango,Sr.Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan,Adv. Mr. C. Kranthi Kumar,Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi,Adv. Mr. V.M. Eshwar,Adv. Ms. Aswani Satheesh,Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S. Nagamuthu,Sr.Adv. Ms. D. Durga Devi,Adv. Mr. Pranab Prakash, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. N.R. Elango,Sr.Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan,Adv. Mr. C. Kranthi Kumar,Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi,Adv. Mr. V.M. Eshwar,Adv. Ms. Aswani Satheesh,Adv.
Table of Contents
2. High Court erred by relying on the sole witness for the appellant while doubting the same witness's reliability regarding co-accused in the same incident. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 14 , 15 )
3. Conviction cannot be based on conjectures or the testimony of an interested witness when the same witness's reliability is found insufficient to convict co-accused. (Para 11 , 13 , 14 )
4. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment quashed — Appellant acquitted of all charges. (Para 17 )
5. Can a criminal conviction be based on the sole testimony of an interested witness?
Yes, a conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a witness. However, when the witness is an interested witness, their testimony must be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection. (Para 11 , 13 )
6. Is it permissible to convict one accused while acquitting others based on the same witness's testimony if that testimony is deemed unreliable for the others?
No. If the court concludes that a witness's account of an incident is difficult to believe regarding co-accused, convicting another accused based on the same testimony and conjectures is not permissible. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 14 )
7. Does the recovery of a weapon from an open place accessible to the public support a conviction?
No, the recovery of a material object from an open place accessible to everyone is not a sufficient circumstance upon which a conviction can be based. (Para 15 )
JUDGMENT
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated 1st November 2019 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Crl. A. (MD) No. 479 of 2017, whereby the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 17th November 2017 in Sessions Case No. 83 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi (hereinafter, “trial court”) was partly allowed. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence qua the appellant insofar as the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, “IPC”) but he was acquitted of the charge under Section 506(ii) IPC.
3. The facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are as given below:
3.1 The genesis of the present case is the registration of FIR No. 224 of 2015 on 16th May 2015 at Police Station Sathankulam, District Thoothukudi by one Mr. Kovilraj (PW- 1). Written information was received at the said Police Station at 02:30 hours alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 342, 302 and 506(ii) IPC by the appellant, Rajarathinam and Albert. It is stated by PW-1 that he is a Church Member and Choir Master in Immanuel Church at Ananthapuram. He stated that he was in favour of Arputharaj in the Diocese Election, due to which the appellant, who supported the rival faction of Pushparaj entered into a wordy quarrel with his son (Praveen Kumar) about a year prior to the day of the incident. It is stated that the informant (PW-1), his wife Chandra and his son had gone to Ananthapuram for a Consecration Festival on 15th May 2015. In the intervening night of 15-16th May 2015, at around 00:30 hours, when the informant’s son was standing in front of the Church and chatting with his friends Praveen Immanuel (PW-2), Melvin Abraham (not examined) and Gerome (not examined), the three accused persons came and abused the informant’s son in a filthy language and questioned him as to how after working against them in the election, he could come and participate in the festival. It is stated that informant’s son had replied that they had no right to question him. Immediately thereafter, the appellant took out a knife, which he had hid in his hip (pocket), upon which, the informant’s son ran owing to escape. The informant’s son was chased by the three of them, however, he was caught by the accused persons. It is alleged that while the other two accused persons held the informant’s son, the appellant hacked the knife forcibly on the left side of his neck. The informant’s son was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead. Hence, the FIR by PW-1.
3.2 Upon registration of the FIR, the investigation was taken over by Vijaya Kumar (Inspector of Police) (PW-19). PW- 19 went to the scene of crime, he prepared the observation mahazar (Ex. P-18) and a rough sketch (Ex. P-19) and also recovered the material objects (M.O.-12 and M.O.-13) in the presence of witnesses. He, thereafter, proceeded to the hospital and prepared the inquest report (Ex. P-21). Based on the confession of the appellant, the knife (M.O.-1) was recovered by Nagarajan, Inspector of Police (PW-18), who had taken over part of the investigation in the absence of PW-19 for a short period. The statements of all the witnesses were recorded by PW-19 and after completion of investigation, on 17th August 2015, the final report was filed before Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam.
3.3 Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, it was committed to the trial court. The trial court framed charges against the accused persons. To bring home the guilt of accused persons, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses, marked 23 documents and 13 material objects. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the defence. The trial court, upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and after analyzing the ora
