Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Victim was murdered – The trial court and the High Court, despite most of the prosecution witnesses turning hostile, found the prosecution case to be established beyond reasonable doubt through the unrefuted testimony of PW-1 and convicted the accused persons – The only point for consideration on appeal was, whether eight men can be convicted based on the testimony of a solitary witness, who was the only eyewitness to the crime – Held: Presence of the accused on the spot is not disputed by anyone – Witness, despite being cross-examined extensively, is consistent in his testimony to the effect that the accused caught hold of the deceased and inflicted serious injuries upon his person – Though, the witness is not clear as to which one of the accused had assaulted the deceased after he fell down, but then he is categorical with regard to the role played by each one of them – Testimony of the sole eyewitness PW-1 is worthy of credence, trustworthy, truthful and believable and the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt against all accused persons – The findings of the trial court and the High Court upheld. Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The presence of the accused on the spot is not disputed by anyone of them. This Court may say so not only from the line of their cross-examination of the witnesses but also it is noticed hereinafter, to have come on record through the testimonies of the witnesses, who despite not having supported the prosecution on the issue of the accused having assaulted the deceased, have supported on this count. Perusal of crossexamination part of the testimony of PW-1 unrefutedly reveals all the accused hiding in bushes at the spot. This witness, despite being cross-examined extensively, is consistent in his testimony to the effect that the accused caught hold of the deceased and inflicted serious injuries upon his person. The accused had used chilli powder as a weapon to stop him from fleeing away and pushed him to the ground. Though, the witness is not clear as to which one of the accused had assaulted the deceased after he fell down, but then he is categorical with regard to the role played by each one of them. The questions in respect of the testimony of the sole eye-witness PW-1 being worthy of credence, trust-worthy, truthful and believable are answered in the affirmative. [Paras 12 and 14][973-B-G]
2. Merely because no recovery was made from anyone apart from accused Nos.2 and 4 would not mean that others were not present at the scene of the crime; simply because a number of witnesses had turned hostile, does not on its own give a ground to reject the evidence of PW-1; and that PW-1 being the brother of the deceased and therefore, is an interested as well a chance witness, are untenable submissions. It is in the backdrop this Court does not find favour with the submissions of senior counsel appearing for the appellants that the conviction of eight persons based on solitary evidence is not justified, particularly when there is no vagueness in his testimony with respect to the role ascribed to each one of the accused. [Para 21][978-F-H]
3. The role of PW-24 in drafting the complaint cannot be taken as negative simply because he was an advocate and so he paid attention to detail. PW-1 has stated in his complaint that he does not know how to read and write. The person to whom the role of summoning PW-24 to write the complaint may be attributed or the discrepancy in drafting either on the instructions of PW-1 or on the basis of the notes prepared by the police is not so stark, keeping in view the limited span of time within which all these activities took place for it to lend credence to the grounds urged in these appeals by special leave petitions with respect to the approach of the Sessions Judge being entirely erroneous or illegal. The genesis of the prosecution case cannot be said to have been shaken or rendered doubtful. The complaint was alleged to have been drafted by an advocate (PW-24), and not by the petitioner with the help of the police personnel. Does it cast doubt on the prosecution case? In this Court’s considered view, none. For, as this Court has noticed the defence to have admitted their presence on the spot and the independent witnesses ascribed a specific role to each of the accused. [Para 22][979-A-D]
4. The holding in the landmark Masalti, where four learned judges have held that the prosecution need not prove specific acts to specific persons. With neither the number nor the presence of the accused being disputed, this Court cannot, within law, hold that the accused have been wrongly convicted by the courts below. [Para 24][980-A-B]
Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala (1980) 4 SCC 425; Chotkau v. State of U.P. (2022) SCC OnLine 1313; Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura (2011) 9 SCC 479 : [2011] 14 SCR 411; Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434 : [2013] 3 SCR 884; Bhagwan Jagannath Markad v. State of Maharashtra (2016) 10 SCC 537 : [2016] 5 SCR 452; Karan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 6 SCC 52; Karunakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu (1976) 1 SCC 434 : [1976] 2 SCR 708; Sadhuram v. State of Rajasthan (2003) 11 SCC 231; Bhagwan Jagannath Markad v. State of Maharashtra (2016) 10 SCC 537 : [2016] 5 SCR 452; Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1979) 1 SCC 355 : [1979]
2 SCR 363; State of Rajasthan v. Doud Khan (2016) 2 SCC 607 : [2015] 13 SCR 1131; Mehraj v. State of U.P. (1994) 5 SCC 188 : [1994] 3 SCR 592; Ombir Singh v. State of U.P. (2020) 6 SCC 378; Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana (2018) 6 SCC 610; Ram Gopal v. State of M.P. (2023) SCC OnLine 158; Lalji v. State of U.P. (1989) 1 SCC 437 : [1989] 1 SCR 130; Masalti v. State of UP AIR 1965 SC 202 : [1964] SCR 133; Atley v. State of UP AIR 1955 SC 807; Gurudutt Pathak v. State of U.P. (2021) 6 SCC 116; Geeta Devi v. State of U.P. 2022 SCC OnLine 57; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88; Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian (2021) 5 SCC 283; Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh v. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 421 : [2011] 7 SCR 1; Jagdish v. State of Haryana (2019) 7 SCC 711 : [2019]
11 SCR 22; Harbans Kaur v. State of Haryana (2005)
9 SCC 195 : [2005] 2 SCR 450; Bhaskarrao v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 6 SCC 591 : [2018] 4 SCR 751; RajeshYadav v. State of U.P. 2022 SCC OnLine 150; State of Rajasthan v. Madan (2019) 13 SCC 653 – 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.