Supreme Court: Borrowers Retain Redemption Rights if Balance is Paid After Auction Deadline  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Confirmation of Seizure under Section 37A Impacts Adjudication Proceedings  ||  SC: Blacklisting After Contract Termination is Not Automatic and Needs Independent Review  ||  Grand Venice Fraud Case: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Satinder Singh Bhasin  ||  SC: Senior Employee Cannot Claim Same Lesser Penalty As Subordinate; Bank Manager's Dismissal Upheld  ||  Madras HC: Governor Must Follow Cabinet's Advice on Remission Decisions, Regardless of Personal View  ||  Kerala High Court: Entrepreneurs Must Be Protected From Baseless Protests to Boost Industrial Growth  ||  J&K&L High Court: Second FIR Valid if it Reveals a Broader Conspiracy; 'Test of Sameness' is Key  ||  Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’  ||  SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment    

Rahul Dev v. State - (High Court of Delhi) (31 May 2017)

Where primary witnesses itself are reliable, conviction can safely be based on testimony of said witnesses even in absence of corroboration from call records

MANU/DE/1565/2017

Criminal

By present appeal, Appellant challenges impugned judgment convicting him for offences punishable under Section 302/201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and order on sentence directing him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC. It is submitted that, Appellant has been falsely implicated, hence, he be acquitted of charges.

In a case of eye-witness, prosecution need to prove motive. However, from evidence of witnesses, prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt motive for commission of offence against Appellant. Supreme Court in case of Kamla Kant Dubey v. State of U.P. held- that, it is settled principle that, a conviction can well be founded on testimony of a single witness, if Court finds his version to be trustworthy and corroborated by record on material particulars.

Evidence of call records would have only been corroborative in nature and where primary witnesses itself are reliable, conviction can safely be based on testimony of said witnesses even in absence of corroboration from call detail records.

Evidence of witnesses (Seema, Umesh, Prakash, Ravi Kant Dubey and Rishabh) coupled with extra judicial confession of Appellant made to Umesh, human blood recovered from chest of Appellant at mid-night, coupled with recovery of amputated body of Diwakar, when he alone was present in house after Inspector reached third floor of premises which Appellant has failed to explain, prove case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In view of cogent and convincing evidence led by prosecution, there is no infirmity in impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence. Appeal is dismissed.

Relevant : Kamla Kant Dubey and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. MANU/SC/0694/2015

Tags : CONVICTION   EVIDENCE   VALIDITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved