The judgment established the principle that the evidence of a single eyewitness must be reliable and corroborated by independent evidence from the attending circumstances of the case. The court emphasized the need for corroboration and scrutiny of the evidence of a chance witness.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.

1. The appellants Sunil Patwal and Anand Sharma has assailed the judgment of conviction and sentenced passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Sessions Trial No. 87 of 2004, State vs. Chataru @ Govind and others, dated 21.12.2013, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302, 364 and 201 read with Section 34 PC of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Penal Code’) and have been sentenced to imprisonment of life and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/-, each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo three months of simple imprisonment; rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence punishable under Section 364 IPC along with fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default of payment of fine, two months simple imprisonment; and to undergo three years’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC along with fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default of payment of fine amount, one month’s of additional simple imprisonment.

2. In total 5 accused persons were tried for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 364, 201 and 147 of the Penal Code. Out of them, accused Chataru alias Govind, Vishal and Ajay Sharma alias Goli (in Sessions Trial No. 87 of 2004) were acquitted of the offences and the present appellants Sunil Patwal and Anand Sharma were convicted, as aforesaid.

3. The shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution is that on 09.03.2003 the complainant Ramesh Kumar presented an FIR before the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, District Haridwar, inter alia, alleging that his son Soni alias Rajesh on 04.03.2003, at about 11:00 A.M. was taken away by Anil Kumar S/o Dori Lal reached to his house for settling the outstanding amount of Rs. 10,000/- but since then his son has not returned home and his whereabouts are not known. He apprehended that his son has been abducted or has been killed, therefore, he prayed for investigation into the allegations made by him.

4. On the basis of such a report, a Criminal Case No. 73 of 2003 was registered under Section 364 of the Penal Code and investigation took up the investigation of the case. In the course of investigation, he examined the complainant and the other witnesses. In course of the investigation, he was further informed that on 10.03.2003, they found the dead body of the deceased floating in a river uhy /kkjk xaxk th Bksdj uEcj 10 (Neel Dhara Ganga Ji Thokar No. 10) and he further prayed that the necessary action may be taken. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer recovered the dead body from the river, held inquest thereon and dispatched it for postmortem examination.

5. In the course of the investigation, he arrested some of the accused, made seizures of the material objects and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused appellants and others for the aforesaid offences. The defence took the plea of simple denial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined eight wittiness and led it to evidence several documents as exhibits.

6. PW2 Ramesh Kumar is the complainant of the case. He is also the father of the deceased. PW1 Smt. Neetu, happens to be the wife of the deceased who has stated about the last seen of the accused Anil Kumar and the two appellants on 4th March, 2003 at about 11:00 A.M. PW4 Ram Awatar is the main witness on whose evidence the prosecution relied heavily. He has been accepted as an eye-witness to the occurrence by the learned Trial Judge. He is also a witness to the recovery of the dead body of the deceased from the river. PW5 Preet Kamal is a witness of the Panchnama. Rests are the official witnesses. PW3 being the Doctor S.C.Srivastav, who conducted postmortem examination of the dead body of the deceased. PW7 Naresh Chandra Azad and PW8 Vijay Kumar are the two investigating Officers in this case.

The defence has not examined any witness or led any documents in evidence in order to establish i