Penal Code – ss. 302 & 34 – Conviction on the basis of the deposition of the sole eye witness – The respondents-three accused were tried for having committed the murder of victim-deceased – The respondents were held guilty of the offences u/s 302 r/w. 34 of IPC by the trial Court – However, the High Court did not find the testimony of PW1 credible and acquitted the accused – On appeal, held: PW1 was the eye witness to the occurrence at both places i.e. the first part was at the time when the victim, PW1 and one another were travelling in the car, where A1 caused injury on the right shoulder of the victim and thereafter is the second part, when victim was trying to run away and reached a shed and all three accused entered shed and caused injuries to the victim-deceased – PW1 was fully cross-examined on behalf of the accused in which he stood by what he has stated and fully supported the case of the prosecution – No reasons to disbelieve and/or doubt the credibility of PW1 – Merely because the original complainant is not examined cannot be a ground to discard the deposition of PW1 – As per settled position of law, there can be a conviction on the basis of the deposition of the sole eye witness, if the said witness is found to be trustworthy and/or reliable – Recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence is not a sine qua non to convict the accused – If there is a direct evidence in the form of eye witness, even in the absence of recovery of weapon, the accused can be convicted – Similarly, even in the case of some contradictions with respect to timing of lodging the FIR/complaint cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when the prosecution case is based upon the deposition of eye witness – Therefore, the judgment passed by the High Court acquitting the accused is unsustainable and is set aside. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. On perusal of the deposition of PW1, it can be seen that PW1 is the eye witness to the occurrence at both places. When first, the accused attacked while the deceased was travelling in the car, PW1 was present in the car. At that time, the accused dashed the car and broken the wind screen and A1 caused injury on the right shoulder of the deceased. That thereafter the deceased tried to run away and he reached the shed and at that time all the accused chased the deceased, went into the shed, caused injuries on the deceased and then came out of the shed and ran away. PW1 has categorically stated that he had seen all the three accused entering the shed and thereafter they came out and the deceased was lying with the injuries and he was found dead. PW1 has been fully cross-examined on behalf of the accused. However, even after thorough cross-examination, PW1 stood by what he has stated and has fully supported the case of the prosecution. There are no reasons to disbelieve and/or doubt the credibility of PW1. [Para 6][640-D-G]
2. The submission on behalf of the accused that as the original informant has not been examined and that the other independent witnesses have not been examined and that the recovery of the weapon has not been proved and that there is a serious doubt about the timing and place of the incident, the accused are to be acquitted cannot be accepted. Merely because the original complainant is not examined cannot be a ground to discard the deposition of PW1. As observed hereinabove, PW1 is the eye witness to the occurrence at both the places. Similarly, assuming that the recovery of the weapon used is not established or proved also cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when there is a direct evidence of the eye witness. Recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence is not a sine qua non to convict the accused. If there is direct evidence in the form of eye witness, even in the absence of recovery of weapon, the accused can be convicted. Similarly, even in the case of some contradictions with respect to timing of lodging the FIR/complaint cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when the prosecution case is based upon the deposition of eye witness. As observed, PW1 is an eye witness. He has fully supported the case of the prosecution. As per settled position of law, there can be a conviction on the basis of the deposition of the sole eye witness, if the said witness is found to be trustworthy and/or reliable. There is no reason to doubt the credibility and/or reliability of PW1. Therefore, it will be safe to convict the accused on the sole reliance of deposition of PW1. [Paras 7 & 8][640-G-H; 641-A-D]
Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar (2002) 6 SCC 81 : [2002] 3 SCR 1; Kunju Muhammed v. State of Kerala, (2004) 9 SCC 193 : 2003 (7) JT 114 – 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.