1. Accused charged with murder and destroying evidence under Section 201 read with Section 34, IPC — Trial court conviction — High Court acquittal. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 615
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - APPELLANTS
Versus
DINESH - RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1871-1873 OF 2013
Decided on : 07-02-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Conviction can be based on evidence of sole eye witness, if reliable
Conviction can be based on evidence of sole eye witness, if reliable
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence – Evidence of sole eye witness should be accepted with caution – Conviction can be based on such evidence if reliable – It is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the evidence which matters. (Para 8)
(2003) 1 SCC 465; (2002) 9 SCC 537; (2012) 4 SCC 257; (2005) 11 SCC 142 – Relied upon
(b) Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence – Sole eye witness witnessing the crime at 10.30pm – No electricity – Not able to identify accused – Not raising any hue and cry – Slept peacefully and thereafter led normal life – Statement recorded one and half month after the date of incident – another eye witness not examined without any explanation – TIP not conducted – No steps taken to prove blood group on alleged weapon – High Court rightly disbelieving the sole eye witness. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
Accused No. 1—Ajay, was charged with the offence of committing murder of one Rakesh Dattaji Chavan while accused No. 2 (respondent herein) was charged for committing the offences punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34, IPC for allegedly destroying the evidence by cutting the corpse of the deceased Rakesh Dattaji Chavan into pieces and disposing them. The trial Court convicted and sentenced accused No. 2—respondent herein to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
The respondent filed Criminal Appeal before the High Court which came to be allowed.
Finding of the Court:
High Court rightly disbelieving the sole eye witness.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Deepa M. Kulkarni, for Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Adv
For the Respondent: Mr. Subodh K. Pathak, Ms Pranita Shekhar, Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Adv
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Deepa M. Kulkarni, for Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Adv
For the Respondent: Mr. Subodh K. Pathak, Ms Pranita Shekhar, Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Adv
Table of Contents
2. State challenging High Court's acquittal of accused — Contesting the reliability of the sole eye-witness testimony. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Sole eye-witness testimony lacked credibility due to delayed reporting, absence of identification parade, and non-examination of another eye-witness. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. Conviction based on a sole eye-witness requires the testimony to be reliable, confidence-inspiring, and corroborated by other evidence to remove reasonable doubt. (Para 8 )
5. Appeal dismissed — High Court's judgment of acquittal affirmed. (Para 11 )
6. What is the legal standard for relying on the testimony of a sole eye-witness for conviction?
The testimony must be reliable, confidence-inspiring, and beyond suspicion. It must be tested against other material on record and corroborated by other evidence produced by the prosecution regarding the commission of the crime and the involvement of the accused. (Para 8 )
7. Does the number of witnesses determine the validity of a conviction?
No, the court judges the quality of the evidence rather than the quantity to determine whether a statement is worthy of credence. (Para 8 )
8. What factors may render a sole eye-witness's testimony insufficient for conviction?
Factors include unnatural delays in reporting the crime, failure to raise an alarm in populated areas, lack of identification parades, and the non-examination of other available eye-witnesses without satisfactory explanation. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
JUDGMENT :
N.V. RAMANA, J.
1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and order dated 01.10.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 130, 343 and 403 of 2004.
2. The prosecution has levelled allegations against two accused in these appeals. Accused No. 1—Ajay, was charged with the offence of committing murder of one Rakesh Dattaji Chavan while accused No. 2 (respondent herein) was charged for committing the offences punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34, IPC for allegedly destroying the evidence by cutting the corpse of the deceased Rakesh Dattaji Chavan into pieces and disposing them. The trial Court convicted and sentenced accused No. 2—respondent herein to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
3. Having been aggrieved with the conviction and sentence, the respondent filed Criminal Appeal before the High Court which came to be allowed. As a matter of fact, two more criminal appeals were also filed before the High Court, one by the co-accused (accused No. 1) against his conviction and sentence and the other by the State seeking enhancement of sentence against the accused. By the judgment impugned herein, the High Court while dismissing the appeal of the State, allowed the appeals filed by the accused and acquitted them of the charges.
4. Dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, three criminal appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 1871 of 2013, against the respondent herein who is accused No. 2, Criminal Appeal No. 1872 of 2013 (against accused No.1) and Criminal Appeal No. 1873 of 2013 (against accused No.1) have been filed before this Court by the State of Maharashtra. In view of failure of the State despite according several opportunities to furnish correct address of accused No. 1 for effecting service in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1872 and 1873 of 2013, the Judge-in-Chamber of this Court finally passed an order dated 15th December, 2016 in the following terms:
“Learned counsel for the appellant is granted four weeks’ further time, finally, to furnish the latest and correct address of the unserved common sole respondent in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1872 and 1873 of 2013, failing which, the Criminal Appeal Nos. 1872 and 1873 of 2013 shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court.”
5. In spite of the aforesaid order, the appellant—State of Maharashtra has not complied with the directions of Judge-in-Chamber. Consequently, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1872 and 1873 of 2013 stood dismissed for non prosecution. Hence, we are now concerned with Criminal Appeal No. 1871 of 2013 only against respondent herein i.e. accused No. 2.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant -State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – accused, and gone through the material on record.
7. Undoubtedly, out of 23 prosecution witnesses, the evidence of PW7—Pushpabai is crucial in this case as she was presented as the sole eye-witness who had seen the accused No. 2 along with accused No. 1, cutting the corpse of the deceased into pieces. Apparently, there was no other witness who had last seen the accused in the company of deceased prior to the place and time of occurrence. When the entire case hinges on the evidence of a sole witness, a paramount duty is cast on the Court to carefully scrutinize such evidence and find out whether such evidence is worth credence or not. Before assessing the evidence of PW7, we find it appropriate to note some of the views expressed by this Court on this aspect.
8. In Joseph v. State of Kerala, (2003) 1 SCC 465 this Court has observed that where there is a sole witness, his evidence has to be accepted with an amount of caution and after testing it on the touchstone of other material on record. In State of Haryana v. Inder Singh, (2002) 9 SCC 537 this Court has laid down that the testimony of a sole wi
