Delhi HC: Woman's Right to a Shared Household Does Not Allow Indefinite Occupation of In-Laws' Home  ||  Delhi HC: Director Disputes in a Company Do Not Qualify as Genuine Hardship to Delay ITR Filing  ||  Delhi HC: ECI Cannot Resolve Internal Disputes of Unrecognised Parties; Civil Court Must Decide  ||  Bombay High Court: Senior Citizens Act Cannot be Misused to Summarily Evict a Son  ||  Chhattisgarh HC: Service Tax Refund Can't Be Denied on Limitation When Payment Was Made During Probe  ||  Supreme Court: If Tribunal Ends Case For Unpaid Fees, Parties Must Seek Recall Before Using S.14(2)  ||  SC: Article 226 Writs Jurisdiction Cannot be Used to Challenge Economic or Fiscal Reforms  ||  Supreme Court: Hostile Witness Testimony Can't Be Discarded; Consistent Parts Remain Valid  ||  Supreme Court: GPF Nomination in Favour of a Parent Becomes Invalid Once the Employee Marries  ||  Supreme Court: Candidate Not Disqualified if Core Subject Studied Without Exact Degree Title    

Jagdish and Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana - (Supreme Court) (06 Aug 2019)

Conviction on basis of a solitary eye witness is sustainable only if there is reliable evidence proving guilt of accused

MANU/SC/1048/2019

Criminal

In facts of present case, the two Appellants have been convicted under Sections 302, 149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Appellants submits that, once the other Accused have been acquitted, the two Appellants alone cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 149 of IPC. The High Court erred in convicting with the aid of Section 34 in absence of a charge framed under that Section. There is no evidence of any common intention, displaying a prior meeting of minds to commit the assault.

Conviction on basis of a solitary eye witness is undoubtedly sustainable, if there is reliable evidence cogent and convincing in nature along with surrounding circumstances. The evidence of a solitary witness will therefore call for heightened scrutiny. But in the nature of materials available against the Appellants on the sole testimony of PW-1 which is common to all the Accused in so far as assault is concerned, present Court do not consider it safe to accept her statement as a gospel truth in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out completely in the facts of the case.

High Court concluded that the Appellants alone were the assailants of the deceased. The susceptibility of eleven injuries, including incised wounds, by two Accused is considered highly improbable. Therefore, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the relationship between PW-1 and the deceased, the existence of previous animosity, present Court cannot Rule out false implication to uphold the conviction of the Appellants on the evidence of a doubtful solitary witness.

In Lallu Manjhi and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand, it was observed that if ten persons were stated to have dealt with blows with their respective weapons on the body of the deceased, and that if each one of them assaulted then there would have been minimum of ten injuries on the person of the deceased. In that case, as noticed, there are 11 injuries on the person of the deceased. The order of the High Court was unsustainable and accordingly set aside. The Appellants are acquitted. The appeal is allowed.

Relevant : Lallu Manjhi and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand, MANU/SC/0004/2003

Tags : CONVICTION   EVIDENCE   CREDIBILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved