Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 r/w s.149, and s.148 – Murder – Conviction of accused-appellants on basis of sole testimony of PW6 – High Court found PW6 to be in the category of a witness who was “neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable”, and upheld conviction seeking corroboration from post-mortem report – Conviction of appellants – Challenged, on ground that PW6 fell in the category of a “wholly unreliable” witness – Held: From evidence of PW3 and PW4 which was fully corroborated by evidence of DW3 and DW4, it was clear that PW6 could not have witnessed the incident – Evidence of PW6 would fall in the category of “wholly unreliable” witness – As such, no conviction could be based solely on his testimony – Corroboration sought by High Court from the medical evidence was not justified – Medical evidence could only establish that the death was homicidal – However, it could not have been used to corroborate the version of PW6 that he had witnessed the incident – Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and as such, accused-appellants entitled to be given the benefit of doubt – Appellants accordingly acquitted. Criminal Trial – Witnesses – Categories of witnesses – Held: Witnesses are of three types, viz., (a) wholly reliable; (b) wholly unreliable; and (c) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable – When the witness is “wholly reliable”, the Court should not have any difficulty inasmuch as conviction or acquittal can be based on the testimony of such single witness – Equally, if the Court finds that the witness is “wholly unreliable”, there would be no difficulty inasmuch as neither conviction nor acquittal can be based on the testimony of such witness – It is only in the third category of witnesses that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial.
Criminal Trial – Motive – Only because motive is established, the conviction cannot be sustained.
Criminal Trial – Witness – Defence witness vis-a-vis prosecution witness – Held: Same treatment is required to be given to the defence witness(es) as is to be given to the prosecution witness(es).
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1.1. In its celebrated judgment in the case of Vadivelu Thevar, the Supreme Court has found that witnesses are of three types, viz., (a) wholly reliable; (b) wholly unreliable; and (c) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. When the witness is “wholly reliable”, the Court should not have any difficulty inasmuch as conviction or acquittal could be based on the testimony of such single witness. Equally, if the Court finds that the witness is “wholly unreliable”, there would be no difficulty inasmuch as neither conviction nor acquittal can be based on the testimony of such witness. It is only in the third category of witnesses that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. [Para 13][744-B-C]
2.1. The High Court found the testimony of PW6 to be in the third category and upheld the conviction seeking corroboration from the Post-Mortem Report conducted by PW2. [Para 14][744-D]
2.2. However, it could clearly be seen from the testimony of PW3 and PW4, without even referring to the testimony of DW3 and DW4, that it was DW3 who had informed PW6 about the deadbody of the deceased lying on route. The evidence of PW3 and PW4 is fully corroborated by the evidence of DW3 and DW4. It is a settled law that same treatment is required to be given to the defence witness(es) as is to be given to the prosecution witness(es). From the evidence of these witnesses, it is amply clear that PW6 could not have witnessed the incident. [Paras 17, 18, 20 and 21][745-D-E, G-H]
2.3. The evidence of PW6 would fall in the category of “wholly unreliable” witness. As such, no conviction could be based solely on his testimony. The corroboration sought by the High Court from the medical evidence was not justified. The medical evidence could only establish that the death was homicidal. However, it could not have been used to corroborate the version of PW6 that he has witnessed the incident. [Para 22][746-A-B]
2.4. Insofar as the contention of respondent-State that the prosecution has proved the motive is concerned, it is well settled that only because motive is established, the conviction cannot be sustained. [Para 23][746-C]
3. The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and as such, the accused are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. The appellants are acquitted of the charges charged with. [Paras 24, 25][746-C-D]
Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras [1957] SCR
981 – relied on.
Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan (Smt) v. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble and Another (2003) 7 SCC 749 : [2003]
3 Suppl. SCR 426; State of Andhra Pradesh v.
Pullagummi Kasi Reddy Krishna Reddy Alias Rama Krishna Reddy and Others (2018) 7 SCC 623; and Rupinder Singh Sandhu v. State of Punjab and Others (2018) 16 SCC 475 : [2018] 6 SCR 479 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.