NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

State Through The Inspector Of Police vs. Laly @ Manikandan - (Supreme Court) (14 Oct 2022)

A conviction can be based on the basis of the deposition of the sole eye witness

MANU/SC/1341/2022

Criminal

The State has preferred the present appeals dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has allowed the said appeals by acquitting the Respondents – accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Merely because the original complainant is not examined cannot be a ground to discard the deposition of PW1. 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 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.

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.

The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court acquitting the accused is unsustainable and the same is quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court convicting the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 302 read with 34 of IPC is restored. Appeals allowed.

Tags : ACQUITTAL   DEPOSITION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved