2007 Supreme(SC) 336

2007(3) Supreme 643
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
C.K. Thakker & P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
Namdeo — Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 914 of 2006
Decided on 13-3-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Dr. Sushil Balwada, Advocate (SCLSC).
For the Respondent : Sushil Karanjkar, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure and V.N. Raghupathy, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. It is open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction as our legal system has always laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quatity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses.
2. A witness who is a relative of the deceased or victim of a crime cannot be characterised as ‘interested’. However, evidence of an eye witness who is a near relative of the victim, should be closely scrutinized but no corroboration is necessary for acceptance of his evidence.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Murder — Single eye witness, a close relative of deceased — Conviction sustainable — Quantity of evidence never considered to be a test for deciding a criminal trial — Emphasis of Courts is always on quality of evidence — Evidence of a close relative must be scrutinized carefully — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 134 — Number of witnesses — Appreciation of evidence.

       Held : It is well-settled that it is quality of evidence and not quantity of evidence which is material. Quantity of evidence was never considered to be a test for deciding a criminal trial and the emphasis of Courts is always on quality of evidence. (Para 14)

       From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that Indian legal system does not insist on plurality of witnesses. Neither the Legislature (Section 134, Evidence Act, 1872) nor the judiciary mandates that there must be particular number of witnesses to record an order of conviction against the accused. Our legal system has always laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence. The bald contention that no conviction can be recorded in case of a solitary eye witness, therefore, has no force and must be negatived. (Para 17)

       A witness who is a relative of the deceased or victim of a crime cannot be characterised as ‘interested’. The term ‘interested’ postulates that the witness has some direct or indirect ‘interest’ in having the accused somehow or other convicted due to animus or for some other oblique motive. (Para 18)

       A close relative cannot be characterised as an ‘interested’ witness. He is a ‘natural’ witness. His evidence, however, must be scrutinized carefully. If on such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based on the ‘sole’ testimony of such witness. Close relationship of witness with the deceased or victim is no ground to reject his evidence. On the contrary, close relative of the deceased would normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent one. (Para 24)

       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Murder — Solitary eye witness being son of deceased — Incident took place at residence of deceased as well as the witness — It was night time about 3.00 a.m. when the witness heard shouts of his father calling ‘Bapa re Bapa re’ — On hearing the cry, son of deceased (PW6) and his wife rushed towards backyard of his house where they noticed accused assaulting deceased on head with an axe — PW6 chased him but accused disappeared in darkness — Evidence of PW6 corroborated by PW8, a neighbour of deceased — According to him, relations between the accused and deceased were strained — Trial Court held that it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was accused alone who had caused injuries to the deceased which resulted in his death — High Court confirmed his conviction — Injury inflicted was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death of victim — Whether courts below were justified in holding that case was covered by Section 302 IPC — (Yes) — Whether conviction of accused based on solitary testimony of son of deceased was sustainable — (Yes).

       Held : In the present case, PW6-Sopan is the son of deceased Ninaji. The incident took place at the residence of Ninaji as well as the witness (PW6-Sopan). It was night time about 3.00 a.m. Obviously, therefore, his presence in his own house was natural and he could not be said to be a ‘chance witness’. PW6 was sleeping in his own room along with his wife and deceased Ninaji was in the courtyard on his cot. That was also natural. There is nothing unusual in his (PW6-Sopan) coming out of his room when his father cried ‘Bapa re Bapa re’. It was also normal behaviour on the part of the son to chase the accused as he had seen the accused administering axe blow on the head of his father. Unfortunately, however, due to darkness outside the house, the accused was successful in making his escape. The testimony of PW6-Sopan appears to both the Courts to be trustworthy and reliable. In addition, the Court also found further corroboration from the evidence of PW8-Raju who could not strictly be said to be an eye witness but who saw the accused coming out of the house of Ninaji with axe in his hand. He referred to electric light in the courtyard where deceased Ninaji was sleeping. He also stated that Ninaji was saying that he was assaulted by Nanya, i.e. accused Namdeo. Similar dying declaration was made by deceased Ninaji before PW 7- Dr. Suresh Wagh as well. Medical evidence of PW7-Dr. Suresh Wagh, PW3-Dr. Suhas Borle and PW4-Dr. Jaiswal further corroborates the prosecution story and injuries sustained by Ninaji. It, therefore, cannot be said that the Courts below had committed an error in relying upon the sole testimony of PW6-Sopan, particularly when it was corroborated in material particulars with the testimony of PW8-Raju and three Doctors. The contention raised by the accused, therefore, cannot be upheld. (Para 25)

       Finally, we are unable to uphold the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-accused that the case falls under Section 304, II IPC. Considering the nature of weapon used by the accused (axe) and the vital part of the body (head) of the deceased chosen by him, it was clear that the intention of the accused was to cause death of Ninaji. PW 4 Dr. Jaiswal in his deposition stated that injury No. 1 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the victim. In the circumstances, both the Courts were right in holding that the case was covered by Section 302 IPC. (Para 26)