Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 19190
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. V. Jayakumar, J
Accused Nos. 2 and 3 – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
CRL.A 246/2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Adv. S. Rajeev
For the Respondents: Smt. T.V. Neema
A conviction based on a single eyewitness's testimony is only valid if that testimony is wholly reliable and free from contradictions. Otherwise, it cannot sustain a conviction.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 r/w 34, 341 r/w 34, 143, 147, 148, and 120B - Criminal appeal against conviction for murder - The appellants were convicted based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness, which was found unreliable due to significant contradictions and omissions in his statements - The prosecution failed to provide corroborative evidence, leading to a lack of confidence in the conviction. (Paras 30, 66, 74)
(B) Evidence - Sole eyewitness - The court emphasized that while a conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness, such testimony must be wholly reliable and free from inconsistencies. (Paras 42, 48)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were accused of murdering Dhanesh, allegedly attacked by multiple assailants, including the appellants, after a political rivalry incident. The conviction was primarily based on the testimony of a single eyewitness, who later changed his account. (Paras 4, 8, 30)
Findings of Court:
The court found the evidence of the sole eyewitness unreliable due to contradictions and omissions, leading to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 66, 74)
Issues: The main issues were the reliability of the sole eyewitness's testimony and whether the prosecution's evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction. (Paras 66, 74)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the conviction could not stand on the basis of a solitary, unreliable witness, highlighting the need for corroborative evidence in such cases. (Paras 42, 66)
Result: Criminal Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's conclusion on the unreliability of the eyewitness. (Para 66 , 67 , 69) |
| 2. final judgment on acquittal of the appellants. (Para 73 , 74) |
JUDGMENT
K.V. JAYAKUMAR, J
This criminal appeal is preferred impugning the judgment of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Thalassery, in SC No. 332 of 2010. The appellants herein are the accused Nos. 2 and 3. The appellants, along with accused Nos. 4 to 9, faced the trial before the Sessions Court, Thalassery for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 302, 341 r/w 149, and 120B of the Penal Code.
2. The learned Sessions Judge found the appellants (accused Nos. 2 and 3) guilty under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC and 341 r/w 34 of . The Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Nos. 4 to 9 under Sections 143 , 147 , 148 , 341 and 302 r/w 149 of the . All the accused were found not guilty under Section 120B of the . The accused No.1, Swaroop, absconded, and the case against him was split up.
3. The appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs.30,000/- each. They were also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offense under Section 341 r/w 34 of IPC .
Prosecution case
4. On 12.01.2008 at about 10.15 p.m., near Meenkunnu junction, the accused Nos. 1 to 9 attacked the deceased Dhanesh with lethal weapons and committed the murder. The deceased Dhanesh was returning from Gopal Smaraka Mandiram on a motorbike bearing registration No.KL-11-B-4365 riding with PW1, Madakkara Prajeesh, as pillion rider. The prosecution alleges that accused No.1, Swaroop, inflicted a stab injury on the left side of the neck with MO-1 knife dagger, and accused Nos. 2 and 3 caught the motorcycle. It is further alleged that accused No.3 inflicted a blow on the left hand of the deceased with MO-2 Wooden rafter.
5. Based on Ext. P1 FIS lodged by PW1, Madakkara Prajeesh, the Valapattanam Police registered Crime No.40/2008. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was laid before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate after completing the preliminary steps, committed the case to the Sessions Court, Thalassery. The Sessions Court, Thalassery, made over the case to Additional Sessions Court-III, Thalassery, for trial and disposal.
Procedures in the trial court
6. The accused Nos. 1 to 9 appeared before the trial court on the receipt of summons. Later, the case against Accused No.1 was split up since he absconded. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Sections 143 , 147 , 148 , 341 and 302 r/w 149, and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code . When the charge was read over and explained to the accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. To prove the charge against the accused, PWs. 1 to 28 were examined, and Exts. P1 to P36 were marked. MOs. 1 to 5 were also identified. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure . The accused denied the incriminating circumstances levelled against them and pleaded innocence. On the side of the defence, Exts.D1 to D14 were marked. The learned Sessions Judge, after a full fledged trial, convicted and sentenced the appellants/accused Nos. 2 and 3 as aforesaid. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment, accused Nos. 2 and 3 preferred this criminal appeal.
The contentions of the appellants
8. Adv. S. Rajeev, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is patently illegal and unsustainable. The entire prosecution story revolved upon the solitary evidence of PW1, Madakkara Prajeesh. The evidence of PW1 is wholly unreliable and unworthy of credence. The trial court ought not to have relied on the version of PW1 to convict the appellants/accused. It is submitted that the prosecution does not have a definite, concrete and consistent case regarding the identity of the accused persons, the weapons a
