'It's Quality & Not Quantity Of Witnesses Which Matters' : Supreme Court Relies On Solitary Eyewitness Testimony To Affirm Sentence

"It is not the quantity of the witnesses but the quality of witnesses which matters", observed the Supreme Court while affirming the conviction and sentence of four persons for murder of four persons.

Only one eye-witness was examined in the case. She was one Pinky Singh, whose parents, brother and brother-in-law were murdered by the accused at night over a property dispute. She was also attacked by the accused. The trial court sentenced the four accused, Mukesh, Ajai alias Ajju, Braj Pal and Ravi to death. In appeal, the High Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment.

The Supreme Court was considering the appeals filed by the accused and the State which was aggrieved by the commutatin of death sentence. One of the accused, Ajai, died during the pendency of appeal in the Supreme Court.

The primary argument raised by the appellants was that the case was based on the evidence of a solitary witness, who was related to the deceased and had enmity with the appellants. The appellants highlighted that Pinky Singh did not disclose the names of the appellants at the first instance. The FIR was registered against unidentified persons. The appellants also relied on the fact that the statement of Pinky Singh was not recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. Also, two other witnesses who also claimed to be in the house at the time of offence, were not examined.

A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath rejected the arguments. The bench accepted the explanation that the witness did not disclose the names of the assailants at the first instance out of fear and that the names were later revealed to the police when she gained confidence. As regards non-examination of other witnesses, the bench said it is immaterial, so long as the evidence of the solitary witness is credible.

"Non-examination of the statement under section 164 CrPC also has no relevance or bearing to the findings and conclusions arrived at by the courts below. It was for theInvestigating Officer to have got the statement under section 164 CrPC recorded. If he did not think it necessary in his wisdom, it cannot have any bearing on the testimony of PW-1 and the other material evidence led during trial", the Court further observed.

Finding no infirmity with the High Court verdict, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals. The Court also found that that the High Court has given justifiable reasons for commuting the death penalty.

Case Title : Ajai alias Ajju and others vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 110

For Parties Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, AOR Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Rishi Malhotra, AOR Ms. Deep Shikha Bharati, Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Brijender Chahar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR Mr. Karan Chahar, Adv. Ms. Pooja Chahar, Adv

Indian Penal Code- Section 302- Murder Trial -Supreme Court affirms sentence and conviction of accused for murder based on solitary eyewitness testimony.

Indian Evidence Act 1872 -It is not the quantity of the witnesses but the quality of witnesses which matters - Para 21

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 164-Non-examination of the statement under section 164 CrPC also has no relevance or bearing to the findings and conclusions arrived at by the courts below. It was for theInvestigating Officer to have got the statement under section 164 CrPC recorded. If he did not think it necessary in his wisdom, it cannot have any bearing on the testimony of PW-1 and the other material evidence led during trial - Para 22

Click here to read the judgment