Back
2010 (5) Supreme 743
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Bipin Kumar Mondal — Appellant
versus
State of West Bengal — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1247 of 2008
Decided on : 26-7-2010
Criminal Trial-Testimony of sole witness-Admissibility-As a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable-There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on sole testimony of a single witness-But if there are doubts about testimony courts will insist on corroboration- In fact, it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material- The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted- The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise- 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 inspite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence. (Paras 25 to 27)
Facts of the Case :
Appellant was prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of his wife and his son by inflicting knife injuries on them and for injuring informant ,his other son. Trial Court convicted appellant for said offence. Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.
2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
There was nothing on record to show that there could be any reason for PW-1, a son, to falsely implicate and rope his father into such a gruesome murder or the other witnesses, who had been so close relatives and neighbours of appellant, would support the prosecution case. During cross-examination of all of witnesses,nothing had transpired for which their evidence may be discarded. The witnesses were natural and most probable and their presence at the place of occurrence immediately after commission of crime was expected, being close relatives and neighbours.No reason could be given as to why such close relations of appellant would depose against him. In such a case, particularly when a son and other closely related persons deposed against appellant, proof of motive by direct evidence loses its relevance. Instantly ocular evidence was supported by medical evidence. Nothing on record to show that appellant had received any grave or sudden provocation from the victims or that appellant had lost his power of self control from any action of either of victims. Facts and circumstances of the case not presented special features warranting review of judgments/orders of courts below. Appeal having no merit was dismissed.
Result : Appeal Dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. —
1.This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13th July, 2005, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 352 of 2001 by the High Court of Calcutta, by which the High Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant and upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 4 of 2001 (State Vs. Bipin Kumar Mondal) under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as the ‘IPC’). Factual Matrix :
2.Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that one Sujit Mondal, PW-1, lodged an Ejahar with Raninagar Police Station on 6.12.1999 stating that his father Bipin Kumar Mondal, appellant herein, came to their house at about midnight on 5.12.1999 and attacked his mother, Usha Rani Mondal, with a knife and inflicted severe injuries on her person. When he went to save his mother, he was also attacked by his father. He received injuries on his head and hands and he had to escape out of fear. His younger brother, Ajit Mondal, was also severely injured with a knife by his father. On hearing the hue and cry made by Sujit Mondal, PW- 1, his neighbours came and in the meantime his father ran away.
3.On the basis of the said Ejahar, the police investigated the case and submitted the charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302/307 IPC. Appellant pleaded not guilty and hence, he was put to trial.
4.In support of its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses to bring home the charge against the appellant. An Ejahar was lodged by the son of the appellant and other witnesses had been close neighbours and relatives residing in the same village. The Trial Court considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses and came to the conclusion that petition of complaint had been written by Saidul Islam, PW-10, on the instructions of Sujit Mondal, PW-1, and both of them supported the prosecution case in Court. Saidul Islam, PW- 10, was a resident of another village and had gone to Raninagar Public Health Centre in connection with the treatment of his relation and there he was requested by Sujit Mondal, PW-1, to write the said Ejahar (Exh.-1). Sujit Mondal, PW-1, had deposed that he had gone to the same Public Health Centre at Raninagar and was admitted for treatment for one day. The other witnesses who were close neighbours had supported the prosecution case and deposed that all of them reached the place of occurrence after hearing the shouts by Sujit Mondal and when they reached there, they were told by Sujit Mondal, PW-1, that his father had killed his mother and brother and inflicted injuries on his person. After considering the entire evidence on record and taking it into consideration along with the defence taken by the appellant, which had been only to the extent that he was innocent, the trial Court held that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. However, the injuries on the person of Sujit Mondal, PW-1, were found not to be so serious and he has failed to produce any certificate from Raninagar Public Health Centre or any other proof that he was admitted there. The appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 323 IPC. Thus, he was awarded the sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and 6 months’ RI under Section 323 IPC, however, it was held that both the sentences would run concurrently vide judgment and order dated 12.6.2001.
5.The appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.352 of 2001, which has been dismissed by the High Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 13th July, 2002. Hence, this appeal. Rival Submissions :
6.Shri Seeraj Bagga, learned Amicus Curiae, has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime. Sujit Mondal, PW-1, was not sure as to who had committed the offence. There was no motive for committing the crime and the weapon with which the offence had been committed has never been recovered. The depositions made by PWs 2 to 8, t
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
