Back
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Sujit Narayan Prasad and Navneet Kumar, JJ.
Guput Singh @ Gupteshwar Prasad Singh and Anr. – Appellants
versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 81 of 2005 with Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.144 of 2005
Decided on 18.2.2025
(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 134 – Number of witnesses – There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on sole testimony of a single witness – Judgment of conviction can be passed on the basis of testimony of sole eyewitness but testimony of said witness should be trustworthy and inspire confidence in mind of Court – But if there are doubts about testimony courts will insist on corroboration – It is not number and quantity but quality that is material – Time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted – Test is whether evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise. (Paras 45, 46 and 50)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 – Murder – Common intention – Life sentence – Judgment of conviction can be passed on the basis of testimony of sole eyewitness but if there are doubts about testimony of such sole eyewitness, courts will insist on corroboration – Testimony of sole eyewitness has not been substantiated by father of deceased – When there is direct evidence of acceptable nature regarding commission of offence, question of motive cannot loom large in mind of court – Faulty investigation made by Investigating Officer prejudice accused and can be fatal for prosecution case – When there is direct eyewitness account which is found to be credible, omission to obtain ballistic report and non-examination of ballistic expert may not be fatal to prosecution case – Evidence tendered by eyewitnesses suffer from serious lacunae and their evidence cannot be said to be credible – On same set of evidence, trial court gave benefit of doubt to other accused persons – If result of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, accused could establish probability of his defence and if probability was established by accused, it would really entitle him to benefit of doubt – Impugned order of conviction and Order of sentence quashed and set aside. (Paras 50, 56, 57, 60, 62, 77, 83,
84, 85, 89, 92, 96 and 97)
(C) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Minor discrepancies, embellishments and contradictions in evidence of eyewitness do not destroy essential fabric of prosecution case, core of which remains unaffected – But discrepancies which go to root of matter and shake basic version of witnesses that can be annexed with due importance – More so when there is need of corroboration of testimony of eyewitness from other available evidences – Defence witness is also to be given equal weightage as is to be given to prosecution witnesses – Evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by prosecution or defence. (Paras 67 and 72)
(D) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Principle of ‘benefit of doubt’ belongs exclusively to criminal jurisprudence – Pristine doctrine of ‘benefit of doubt’ can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding guilt of accused – Golden thread which runs through web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to guilt of accused and other to his innocence, view which is favourable to accused should be adopted. (Paras 90 and 92)
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.—Since both these appeals arise out of the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as such with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Factual Matrix
2. These appeals have been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment of conviction dated 07.12.2004 and Order of sentence dated 08.12.2004, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Palamau, in Sessions Trial No.61 of 2003 arising out of Sadar (Town) P.S. Case No.317 of 2002 registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and have been directed to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, further, both the convicts have been directed to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, deems it fit and proper to refer the background of institution of prosecution case. The prosecution story in brief as per the allegation made in the First Information Report reads hereunder as:-
4. According to the fardbeyan of the informant the case of the prosecution is that on the day of alleged occurrence, there was Chhath Festival in the house of the Informant C.W.1 (Court Witness No.1) Niraj Kumar Jaisawal, who was living on rent in the house of Bhola Prasad, Advocate. Informant’s family members were engaged in distributing and feeding prasad in the very evening. At 10.00 p.m. on the same day i.e. on 9-11-02 there was a knock at the door.
5. Informant’s elder brother Onkar Prasad Jaisawal (now deceased) opened the door followed by Informant (C.W.1) and their father P.W.9 Sadan Pd. Jaisawal. Informant’s brother disclosed that accused/appellant Guput Singh had come just before 15 minutes and he had requested him to take prasad, when accused Guput Singh had come near Informant’s house to which he had taken time for 10 minutes to come back. Informant (C.W.1) saw in the Electric light that accused Guput Singh and his son Bablu were armed with pistols. Two others were also armed with fire arms like gun. As soon as Onkar Pd. Jaiswal, informant’s brother went to the accused persons, accused Guput Singh and Bablu shot several rounds of fire on him as a result of which he fell down. It was further alleged that accused/ appellant Bablu shouted that let informant and his father shall be also shot, but accused Guput Singh said that they would be seen later on and all of them fled away by Tata Safari Car of accused Guput singh, parked on the road. Thereafter, injured Onkar Pd. Jaisawal (brother of the informant) was brought to Sadar Hospital Daltonganj by a scooter, where he was declared dead.
6. On the basis of the statement of the informant CW.1 Niraj Kumar Jaisawal, FIR being Sadar (Town) P.S. Case No.317 of 2002 dated 10.11.2002 was registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the accused persons and after due investigation chargesheet was submitted against the appellants.
7. After cognizance of the offence, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charge under Sections u/s 302 I.P.C. and 27 Arms Act for committing murder of one Onkar Prasad Jaisawal was framed against the appellants/accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8. The prosecution has altogether examined 11 prosecution witnesses namely, P.W.1 Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, PW-2 Rohit Sharma, PW-3 Bablu Kumar Jaiswal, PW-4 Virendra Prasad, PW-5 Mohan Kumar Verma, PW-6 Rasid Tabrej, PW-7 Junaid Alam, PW-8 Anil Kumar Prasad, PW-9 Sadan Prasad Jaisawal father of the deceased, PW-10 Jawala Pd. Jaisawal and PW-11 Sanja
(1) Number of witnesses – There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on sole testimony of a single witness – But if there are doubts about testimony courts will insist on corroboration.(2) M....
Conviction can be based on a sole eyewitness if credible, but significant inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence can lead to acquittal.
The conviction based on the testimony of a sole injured eyewitness is valid if the testimony is credible and minor discrepancies do not overshadow the overall evidence supporting the charges of murde....
Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC unsustainable on uncorroborated, contradictory testimony of interested sole eyewitness; benefit of reasonable doubt mandates acquittal where prosecution fails to p....
The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to reliance on uncorroborated eyewitness testimony from interested parties and lack of independent evidence.
The conviction cannot stand if eyewitness testimony is contradictive and lacks corroboration, underscoring the necessity for reliability in criminal prosecutions.
Conviction can be upheld based on the reliable testimony of a sole eyewitness, irrespective of the presence of corroborating evidence or independent witnesses, as long as the evidence is credible.
Mere failure of the prosecution in producing reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory relating to the weapon of offence and the blood-stained earth and clothes would not derogate from the veracit....
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
