2012 (2) Crimes 146 (SC)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Patnaik and Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
Ramnaresh & Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of Chhattisgarh — Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos.166-167 of 2010
Decided on : 28-2-2012

IMPORTANT POINT
Statement of the sole eye-witness should be reliable, should not leave any doubt in the mind of the Court and has to be corroborated by other evidence produced by the prosecution in relation to commission of the crime and involvement of the accused in committing such a crime.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 499, 376(2)(g) and 302 read with Section 34 - Conviction of accused persons four in number by Trial Court for committing rape on prosecuterix and thereafter causing her death by strangulating her-Appeal-Dismissed by High Court-Appeal- PW6, the sole eyewitness at the time of occurrence had been serving in the house of PW1, for a number of years prior to the date of incident- There existed no motive for him to commit the crime-Statement of PW6, clearly narrated how the offence was committed by the accused - Nothing abnormal and inconsistent in testimony of PW6 - Statement of PW6 was fully corroborated by medical evidence -Delay in lodging FIR was sufficiently explained- Cumulative effect of the oral/documentary and expert evidence was that prosecution had been able to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt- Accused righty held guilty of committing the offence under Sections 499, 376(2)(g) and 302 IPC (Paras 16 to 18, 23, 24)

       Evidence of sole eyewitness-Conviction on the basis of-It is permissible for the Court to record and sustain a conviction on the evidence of a solitary eye-witness- But, at the same time, such a course can be adopted only if evidence tendered by such a witness is credible, reliable, in tune with the case of the prosecution and inspires implicit confidence- It is not the quantity but the quality of the witnesses which matters for determining the guilt or innocence of the accused- The testimony of a sole witness must be confidence-inspiring and beyond suspicion, leaving no doubt in the mind of the Court (Para 14)

       Criminal Procedure Code,1973- Section 313 –Scope and ambit of- It is a settled principle of law that the obligation to put material evidence to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is upon the Court. - One of the main objects of recording of a statement under this provision of the Cr.P.C. is to give an opportunity to the accused to explain the circumstances appearing against him as well as to put forward his defence, if the accused so desires- But once he does not avail this opportunity, then consequences in law must follow- Where the accused takes benefit of this opportunity, then his statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in so far as it supports the case of the prosecution, can be used against him for rendering conviction- Even under the latter, he faces the consequences in law (Para 22)

       Death sentence -Principles governing imposition of - Merely because a crime is heinous per se may not be a sufficient reason for the imposition of death penalty without reference to the other factors and attendant circumstances- Most of the heinous crimes under the IPC are punishable by death penalty or life imprisonment- That by itself does not suggest that in all such offences, penalty of death alone should be awarded-In such cases awarding of life imprisonment would be a rule, while ‘death’ would be the exception- The term ‘rarest of rare’ case itself suggests that it has to be an exceptional case- The life of a particular individual cannot be taken away except according to the procedure established by law and that is the constitutional mandate (Paras 36, 37)

       Sentence-Imposition of in offence of rape and murder-In view of age of accused, possibility of death of deceased occurring accidently and the possibility of the accused reforming themselves, they could not be termed as ‘social menace’- It could not be held with certainty that case fell in the ‘rarest of rare’ cases- On appreciation of the evidence on record and facts and circumstances of case, sentence of death commuted to that for life imprisonment -Appeals partly allowed (Paras 49, 50)

       Facts of the Case :

       Accused persons four in number were prosecuted herein in the instant case for committing rape on prosecuterix and thereafter committing her murder by strangulating her. Trial Court convicted accused persons. Appeal thereagainst was dismissed by High Court.

       B. Present Appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

       A. The Court held that PW6, the sole eyewitness at the time of occurrence had been serving in the house of PW1, for a number of years prior to the date of incident. There existed no motive for him to commit the crime. Statement of PW6, clearly narrated how the offence was committed by the accused .There was Nothing abnormal and inconsistent in testimony of PW6 . Statement of PW6 was fully corroborated by medical evidence .Delay in lodging FIR was sufficiently explained. Cumulative effect of the oral/documentary and expert evidence was that prosecution had been able to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt.Accused were righty held guilty of committing the offence under Sections 499, 376(2)(g) and 302 IPC.

       B. However In view of age of accused, possibility of death of deceased occurring accidently and the possibility of the accused reforming themselves, they could not be termed as ‘social menace’. It could not be held with certainty that case fell in the ‘rarest of rare’ cases. On appreciation of the evidence on record and facts and circumstances of case, sentence of death was commuted to that for life imprisonment .Appeals were partly allowed.