Back
2009(1) Supreme 224
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Jarnail Singh — Appellant
versus
State of Punjab — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2009
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2872 of 2008)
Decided on : 15-01-2009
(2002) 7 SCC 691 : 2007 (10) SCC 283 – Relied upon.
Criminal Trial – Evidence of solitary witness – It is no doubt true that conviction could be based on the sole testimony of a solitary eyewitness but in order to be the basis of conviction his presence at the place of occurrence has to be natural and his testimony should be strong and reliable and free from any blemish-What is important is not how many witnesses have been examined by the prosecution but what is the nature and quality of evidence on which it relies- The evidence of a single witness may sustain a sentence of death whereas a host of vulnerable witnesses may fail to support a simple charge of hurt. (Para 17)
(1976) 1 SCC 879 — Relied upon.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304 Part II – Conviction of appellant for causing death of deceased by stabbing him – On appeal, High Court altered conviction to one u/s 304 Part I IPC – Appeal – Evidence of solitary eyewitness Pw7 that he had allegedly seen the entire occurrence including exchange of hot words between appellant and deceased in a winter night and that also when it was totally dark – Pw7 deposed that he could see the entire incident in the light of headlight of car – Statement of Pw7 appeared not to be trustworthy and reliable for simple reason that even though headlight of car was on, it would be lighting only the front portion and not side of car and may not even have lighted sufficiently to enable Pw7 to see as to what had happened inside the car – Presence of Pw7 at spot at that point of time was also providential and he had been examined only as a chance witness – Apart from that Pw6 kept on changing his version frequently – Pw7 gave one version in FIR which was reiterated during course of investigation before police whereas he gave a totally different version before court –Entire story put forth by prosecution and by Pw7 appeared to be doubtful and full of contradictions – Held unsafe to convict a person on basis of such unreliable and untrustworthy evidence particularly when such statement were full of embellishment and contradictions, without corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial – Conviction of appellant could not be sustained – Appeal allowed. (Paras 17 to 21)
Facts of the case :
1.Appellant was convicted herein in the instant case for causing death of deceased by stabbing him. On appeal, High court altered conviction from one u/s 304 Part II IPC to one u/s 304 Part I IPC.
2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the court :
Evidence of Pw7 only eyewitness, held not trustworthy and reliable as he kept on changing his versions. Presence of Pw7 at spot at that point of time was also providential and he had been examined only as a chance witness. Entire story put forth by prosecution and by Pw7 appeared to be doubtful and full of contradictions. Held unsafe to convict a person on basis of such unreliable and untrustworthy evidence particularly when such statements were full of embellishments and contradictions .Conviction of appellant held unsustainable.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. —
1.Leave Granted.
2.The present appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court affirming the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala finding the appellant- accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, found the appellant-accused guilty and convicted him under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years. However, in the appeal filed by the appellant as against the order of conviction and sentence the learned Single Judge while maintaining the finding of guilt of the appellant converted the conviction of the appellant from Section 304 Part II IPC to offence under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.
3.In order to appreciate the contention raised by the appellant-accused that the courts below have failed to properly analyse and scrutinise the evidence of the solitary witness and that the presence of the said solitary witness at the place of occurrence was not natural and also that his testimony was not free from embellishment, we are required to mention brief facts as alleged by the prosecution.
4.Ramtar (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was the younger brother of the Harjinder Kumar, the complainant, both sons of Jiwa Nath. The deceased was employed as a driver of a Maruti Van bearing Registration No. PB-01-0353 belonging to Gurdev Singh, resident of village Sular.
On 15.11.1993, Harjinder Kumar was proceeding from village Phagan Majra to meet Mohinder Singh son of Kartar Singh and at about 6.30 p.m., he reached the bus stop of village Phagan Majra, where he met Manjit Singh, Sarpanch and Chanan Singh, Member Panchayat of village Kasiana. They all then started to village Phagan Majra. When they reached the point from where a kacha path takes off to village Kasiana, they found the abovementioned Maruti Van with its headlight on, lying parked with its windows open at a distance of about 1 = Killa from the metalled road. On suspicion, they went towards the van and on reaching there, they found deceased seated on the right rear seat and accused Jarnail Singh seated on the left rear seat of the van.
Accused was putting pressure on deceased to take the van by kacha path way to village Kasiana but the decease was disinclined. An exchange of hot words ensued. Accused dealt two stab blows with knife, one on the chest and other on right flank of deceased. The deceased became unconscious and rolled down on the ground through the right window of the van. On sensing that deceased has succumbed to the injuries, accused plunged the knife into his chest, in order to commit suicide. The knife fell down from his grip in the van.
After having arranged a tractor the deceased and accused were brought to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. On reaching the hospital, Harjinder Kumar and others were told by doctor that deceased had already expired. Harjinder Kumar and Manjit Singh left for the Police Station, Sadar Patiala. When they reached near the general bus stand, Patiala they came across ASI Karnail Singh alongwith other police officials at about 10.30 p.m. Harjinder Kumar made statement Ex. PD before the ASI who made his endorsement Ex.PD/1 and sent the same to the Police Station where on its basis formal FIR Ex. PD/2 was recorded. ASI Karnail Singh alongwith Harjinder Kumar, Manjit Singh and other police officials went to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. At that time the dead house was lying locked. Early in the morning at about 6.30 a.m. Raj Kumar the attendant came to the dead house and opened the same. The dead body of deceased was identified by Harjinder Kumar and Manjit Singh. The ASI prepared the Inquest Report Ex. PA/1 and handed over the dead body alongwith request Ex. PA/2 to Constable Gurdeep Singh for postmor
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
