Testimony Of Sole Eyewitness Who Is The Complainant Needs Examination With Great Caution : Supreme Court

Recently, the Supreme Court (on December 14), observed that in a case where the appellant/complainant was an interested sole eyewitness being the father of the deceased and had long enmity with the accused persons, his testimony has to be examined with great caution. 

The Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal made these observations while affirming the impugned order of the High Court setting aside the conviction of accused persons. The accused persons were convicted under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code including Section 302 (punishment for murder).

“It may not be out of context to mention that the appellant/complainant, a sole eyewitness, happens to be the most interested witness being the father of the deceased and having long enmity with the group to which the accused persons belong, therefore, his testimony was to be examined with great caution and the High Court was justified in doing so and in doubting it so as to uphold the conviction on his solitary evidence.”

In the instant case, there was a serious enmity between the two rival groups since 1986. This was in connection with the access to the public road which was being blocked by one party. The dispute persisted and resulted in the murder of one Ram Kishan. Apparently, for seeking revenge, the other group killed one Kishan Sarup (victim). In relation to this, FIR was registered on 05.11.2000.

While the trial court had convicted 6 out of 10 accused persons, the High Court had set aside their conviction. Against the acquittal of the accused persons, the appellant/complainant approached the Apex Court.

The appellant's submission that in matters where the accused persons are convicted and sentenced by the trial court, the appellate court does not normally overrule conviction, especially in the light of the evidence of the eyewitness, did not find favor with the Court.

At the outset, the Court noted that though the appellant was a sole eyewitness, he had neither seen anyone killing his son Kishan Sarup. The Court further observed that the complainant had not deposed anything as to why he had not tried to intervene and save his son from assault. In this respect, the Court added:

“The statement that he could not do so on account of the threats extended by the accused persons appears to be a bald statement as no one in a situation where his son is being assaulted and carried away would remain a mere spectator.”

Apart from this, the Court also noted that as per the appellant's statement in the FIR, the accused assaulted his son with a knife and iron rod. The use of a pistol by the accused was not mentioned. However, the police have recovered an empty cartridge. Further, even the cause of death as per postmortem was also firing from close range.

Pursuant to this, the Top Court also observed that the conviction has to be based on the evidence which proves the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Based on these observations, it was opined that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused both by circumstantial evidence and evidence of the eyewitness.

“However, the conviction has to be based on the evidence which proves the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution in this case has failed to prove the guilt of the accused both by circumstantial evidence and by means of evidence of the eyewitness. In respect of circumstantial evidence, the chain of events is not complete whereas the presence of eyewitness is also doubtful.”

In view of this, the Court dismissed the appeal while upholding the view taken by the High Court in extending the benefit of doubt to the accused persons.

Case Title: CHHOTE LAL vs. ROHTASH., Diary No.- 19514 - 2011

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1069

Click here to read the Judgment