In CRIM. APPEAL No.490 of 2017-SC- Even in case of murder, it is not necessary to insist upon plurality of witnesses; Reliable & trustworthy oral evidence of single witness could lead to conviction: SC
Justices S. Ravindra Bhat & Dipankar Datta [24-01-2023]

Read Judgment: MUNNA LAL VS. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Mansimran Kaur

New Delhi, January 25, 2023: The Apex Court has allowed an appeal of a murder accused by observing that there was  a fair degree of uncertainty in the prosecution story and the courts below appeared to have somewhat been influenced by the oral testimony of  the prosecution witnesses without taking into consideration the effect of the other attending circumstances.

 The Division Bench of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta allowed the instant criminal appeals by observing that the charge that the appellants had murdered Narayan, cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 

The present two  criminal appeals, stemmed  out of the same occurrence, calling  in question the judgment and order of  the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing  the Criminal Appeal instituted under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure carried by the appellants from the judgment and order dated  January 29,  1986 of the Court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge. 

Narayan, father of Ram Vilas, was murdered in the morning of September 5, 1985. A written complaint was lodged soon thereafter, by Ram Vilas leading to registration of an F.I.R. under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 

Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet under section 302 was filed before the concerned court against each of the(four) accused persons. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the Sessions Judge held that the consistent and unimpeachable direct evidence proved the case, which was supported by dependable probabilities, existence of motive, medical evidence and all other circumstances and hence sentenced them to life imprisonment. 

The above stated judgment was assailed by way of appeal before the High Court. However, the said appeal was dismissed by the High Court.  Aggrieved by the same, special leave to appeal was preferred before this Court. 

The question that was posed for consideration before this Court was whether the trial court, on the basis of the materials before it, was justified in recording conviction and consequently, sentencing the appellants to spend the rest of their lives in prison. 

To adjudicate upon the same, the Court took into consideration  Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.  In pursuance of the same, the Court stated, “It enshrines the well-recognized maxim that evidence has to be weighed and not counted”.  In other words, it is the quality of evidence that matters and not the quantity.”

“As a sequitur, even in a case of murder, it is not necessary to insist upon a plurality of witnesses and the oral evidence of a single witness, if found to be reliable and trustworthy, could lead to a conviction”,the Court further remarked. 

It was further noted that what was of prime importance was that the circumstances as appearing from the record did not justify the presence of the third prosecution witness at the place of occurrence.

 This Court was therefore, of the firm view that the oral testimony of the said witnesses was not free from doubt and their evidence not being of unimpeachable quality, the rule of prudence would demand a corroboration of their versions from other witnesses. 

In furtherance of the same, the Court also noted that the statement of the third prosecution witness under section 161, Cr. P.C. was recorded nearly 24 days after the incident. Since the Investigating Officer did not enter the witness box, the appellants did not have the occasion to cross-examine him and thereby elicit the reason for such delay. Consequently, the delay in recording the statement of the third prosecution witness in the course of investigation is not referred to and, therefore, remains unjustified, the Court noted. 

As per the Bench, neither the trial court nor the High Court considered the issue of non-examination of the Investigating Officer.  In the facts of the present case, particularly conspicuous gaps in the prosecution case and the evidence of the witnesses not being wholly reliable, the Court held that the charge that the appellants had murdered Narayan, couldnot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

In light of such observations, the appeals were allowed