Sole Eyewitness Testimony Cannot Be Ignored Only Because Testimony With Regards To Other Co-Accused Persons Has Been Found To Be Unreliable: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has recently held that the testimony of a sole eyewitness with respect to an accused cannot be ignored solely because her evidence with respect to the other co-accused persons has been found to be unreliable. 

A Bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Bibhas Ranjan De observed that the principal of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' (false in one thing, false in everything) is not applicable in India with respect to appreciation of evidence. Accordingly, the Bench upheld the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon the appellant for the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC on the basis of the testimony of the sole eye witness (PW 5). 

"In India, the principal 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' does not apply in the matter of appreciation of evidence. When the Court is called upon to assess the evidence of a witness, it becomes its bounden duty to assess the evidence of the witness on the anvil of probability and separate the kernel of truth from the chaff of embellishment. The trial court has rightly assessed the evidence of PW 5 and upon ignoring her embellished effort to implicate other associates of the appellant in the crime, correctly relied on the role of the appellant as the sole assailant of the deceased."

It was further held that although the sole eye witness (PW 5) may have been 'over enthusiastic' in implicating the other co-accused persons, however, her testimony with regards to the role of the appellant in the murder of the deceased has been corroborated by other sources. 

"Effort of PW 5 to implicate other accused persons appears to be over enthusiastic and was rightly mixed by the trial Judge due to lack of corroboration. However, her version vis-à-vis role of the appellant in the murder resonates with truth and finds corroboration from other sources. It would be wrong to ignore her evidence qua the appellant while discarding her embellished version with regard to other accused persons. Hence, the acquittal of the other accused persons does not affect the truthfulness of the prosecution case, vis-à-vis the appellant", the Court underscored. 

Background 

In the instant case, the appellant had been convicted under Section 341 (wrongful restraint) and Section 302 (murder) of the IPC. He had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.5,000 and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 30 days more for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Whereas, a sentence of simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC had been further imposed. 

On January 19, 2021, an altercation broke out between the appellant and one Manik Hembram over drawing water for irrigation through a pump. Subsequently, on January 21, 2021 the appellant had again threatened Hembram. Thereafter, in the evening around 5:45 pm while the deceased, Gangaram Hembram, father of Hembram was going on a bicycle the appellant had dragged him down from his bicycle and then proceeded to bear him mercilessly with a hassle along with others. The deceased had expired on the spot. 

Subsequently, an FIR was lodged by the son of the deceased and thereafter the appellant had been arrested and the weapon of assault had also been recovered. 

Observations 

The Court noted that the prosecution case principally rests on the evidence of the sole eye witness, PW 5. It was further noted that the appellant had challenged the testimony of PW 5 by contending that her testimony in Court is at variance with her earlier statement before the Magistrate. 

Pursuant to the perusal of the record, the Court observed that PW 5 in her deposition has explained the circumstances in which she witnessed the incident. Accordingly, the Court recorded in its order, 

"She stated she had seen the deceased passing Kasundipara club in a bicycle. At that time the appellant and others accosted the deceased and appellant had assaulted the deceased with the help of hasuli. She also claimed other persons had also assaulted. In her statement before Magistrate, the witness stated that the appellant had dragged the deceased down and thereafter he and others had assaulted him to death."

However, the Court ruled that her evidence with regards to the role of the other accused persons has not been corroborated by the son of the deceased in his FIR. In this regard, the Court underscored further,

"I find sufficient corroboration with regard to the role played by the appellant in assaulting the deceased with a hasuli but not with regard to the role of other accused persons in the assault."

The Court further stated that the Trial Court has correctly relied upon the testimony of PW 5 in convicting the appellant as the role of the appellant in the assault of the deceased not only transpires at the earliest opportunity in the FIR  but is also supported by the medical evidence on record. 

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal by observing, 

"In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that it was the appellant who dealt the fatal blow on the deceased with a hasuli resulting in his death. The manner in which he had attacked the victim and the injury caused on the vital organ of the body, leaves no doubt in my mind that he intended to murder him. Thus, I am inclined to confirm the conviction and sentence of the appellant."

Case Title: Lakshi Ram Hembram @ Laxmiram Hembram v. State of West Bengal

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 22. 

Click Here To Read/Download Order