Sole Witness's Testimony Can Form Basis Of Conviction And Sentence If It Is Wholly Reliable: Jharkhand High Court Reaffirms
In a recent judgement, the Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that a conviction and sentence can be based on the testimony of a solitary witness if it inspires confidence and is wholly reliable.
Finding weight in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants, the division bench of Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed, “I find weight in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that this is a case where the judgment of conviction and sentence cannot be returned on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of the informant (P.W. 2). Law is settled that in a case where the testimony of the solitary witness inspires confidence and it is wholly reliable, it can be the basis for passing a judgment of conviction and sentence".
The informant–daughter of the deceased–had claimed that her mother was deserted by her father and had then gone on to live with another man who kept her as his wife. To prevent conception, she underwent an operation. After the informant's father died, the man continued to support the deceased. One day, after having food and drinks together, the appellants, sent by Raghuvir Singh, took the victim 50 yards from the house, where they committed rape and murder.
Subsequently, an FIR was registered under Sections 302(Punishment for murder), 376 (Punishment for Rape) 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender), and 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) Indian Penal Code against the eight accused, after which the trial court convicted them. Thereafter, an appeal was filed challenging the conviction.
It was argued by the counsel on behalf of appellants that this was a unique case where neither post-mortem examination report was brought on record to prove the homicidal death of the deceased, nor medico legal examination report was proved to prove the charge of rape. To cap it all, there was more than one month's delay in lodging the FIR without any explanation for it. It was further contended that the prosecution case rested on the testimony of the informant whose account was riddled with contradictions.
The High Court, in its judgment, noted a delay of more than 30 days in lodging the FIR, which was "unexplained". "It is said that informant had been threatened for not lodging the case, but how after one month the said threat disappeared, is not clear," the court noted.
The court further noted several discrepancies in the daughter's fardbeyan.
Considering these conflicting and contradictory statements, the Court opined that “her solitary account cannot be relied upon without any other corroboration.”
Accordingly, the Court set aside the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence.
Case Title: Mithilesh Chauhan V. The State of Jharkhand and Sunil Chaubey v/s The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 196