Back
1962 Supreme(Ker) 267
Judges : P.GOVINDA MENON
KUNHARU - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA - Respondent
Case No : Crl. A. No. 243 of 1962
Decided On : 11/12/1962
Advocates Appeared :
K. N. Narayanan Nair; G. Raghava Panicker; N. Sudhakaran; T. P. Mathai; For Appellant State Prosecutor; For Respondent
The court's discretion to rely on single witness testimony, the requirement for wholly reliable evidence, and the rule of prudence for corroboration of single witness testimony.
Headnote:
I.P.C. - Arson - S.436 I.P.C. - The court discussed the evidence of the single witness, the rule of prudence for corroboration of single witness testimony, and the discretion of the judge to rely on single witness testimony. The court found the evidence of the single witness unreliable and acquitted the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for setting fire to the dwelling house of the complainant. The only witness to the incident was the complainant's mother, whose testimony was the sole basis for the prosecution's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the sole witness unreliable and insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court also considered the absence of a motive for the accused to commit the crime and the accused's behavior after the incident.
Issues: Reliability of single witness testimony, requirement for corroboration, presence of motive, and accused's behavior after the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court has the discretion to rely on the testimony of a single witness, but it must be wholly reliable. The absence of corroboration and doubts about the witness's identification led to the acquittal of the accused.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence of the appellant were set aside, and he was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.
1. The appellant has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of Ernakulam for an offence under S.436 I. P. C., and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years.
2. The case against him was that he set fire to the dwelling house of pw. 5 Kumaran. pw. 5 lives there with his mother pw. 1, his wife pw. 6 and their two little children aged 6 and 4 respectively. The accused and his family resides in the adjoining compound. There was no fence separating the two compounds. The accused has an unmarried sister by name Mundi. She became pregnant and it was suspected that pw. 5 was responsible for the pregnancy. After she gave birth to a child, Mundi came with her child and set in the house of pw. 5 and refused to get out. pw. 5 forcibly removed her out of the compound. Shortly afterwards she returned with her brother one Kunhappan and there ensued an altercation and grappling between pw. 5 and Kunhappan in the course of which Kunhappan fell down and sustained injuries.
Thereafter it is stated that Kunhappan and his father left the house vowing vengeance.
3. On 4 51962 pws. 5 and 6 had gone out to the grocery shop of pw. 3 about a furlong and a half from their house. pw.1 and the children were alone in the house. The children had gone to the south-western portion of the compound for picking mangoes dropping down from the tree and pw.1 was attending to some work in the kitchen. At about 4-30 p. m. when pw.1 came out to see where the children were, she found the accused setting fire to the south-western corner of the thatched roof of their house with a lighted match stick. On seeing this, she cried out "Kunnumpurath people had set fire to the house" and the accused ran away to his house.
4. On hearing the cry pw. 2 Anna Poulose, who resides on the south and pw. 4 Geevarghese residing on the north and some others came running. The house was burning and some articles were removed from out of the house. pws. 5 and 6 and the shop keeper pw. 3 on hearing the cries also came up but by that time the whole house was burnt down.
5. The same night pw. 5 proceeded to the Kothamangalam police station and at 9-30 p. m. laid the complaint. pw. 8 the Head Constable recorded a complaint Ext. P. 2 from him and registered a case. The next morning he visited the scene, prepared scene mahazar and questioned the witnesses. Enquiries were made of the accused, but he was not available. On 1-6-1962 he surrendered before pw. 10 the Sub-Inspector of Police who arrested him. After completing the investigation the accused was charge-sheeted.
6. The accused denied the offence and stated that he was falsely implicated in the case. He admitted that he had left his house out of fear.
7. That the house of pw. 5 was completely destroyed by fire admits of no doubt. Questions were asked in cross-examination whether they themselves had not set fire to the house, but there is not the slightest reason for their doing so and the suggestion can safely be ignored. Now the question is whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who was responsible for setting fire to the house. The only witness who speaks to having seen the accused setting fire to the house is pw. 1, and naturally her evidence was subjected to severe criticism by the learned defence counsel. It was argued that it would be unsafe to rely on the sole testimony of this witness to find the accused guilty, particularly because it is not free from all blemish.
The learned Sessions Judge has observed in his judgment:
"Having seen and heard pw. 1, a woman of 75 years, giving evidence, her testimony struck me as true and straight-forward."
Nothing has been noted in her deposition about the demeanour of the witness and we have only her deposition to go upon to decide the credibility of the witness.
8. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that it is not safe to convict the appellant on the testimony of a single witness without corroboration.
