(A) Criminal Trial – Single eyewitness – Conviction
Paras 7, 8, 10
The Court reiterated that conviction can be sustained on the basis of the testimony of a single eyewitness, provided such testimony is of sterling quality. It was emphasised that under the law of evidence, it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is determinative. Where the evidence of a solitary witness is cogent, credible and trustworthy, the absence of corroboration does not render it unreliable. The principle that evidence is to be weighed and not counted stands reaffirmed.
(B) Injured witness – Evidentiary value
Paras 6, 11
The Court held that the testimony of an injured witness stands on a higher pedestal in evidentiary evaluation. Where such a witness has witnessed the occurrence and has sustained injuries in the same transaction, his presence at the scene is established beyond doubt. If such testimony withstands cross-examination and inspires confidence, it can safely form the sole basis of conviction.
(C) Sterling witness – Test
Para 8
The Court elaborated the concept of a “sterling witness”, observing that such a witness must be of unimpeachable credibility, whose version remains consistent from inception till deposition in Court. The testimony must be natural, coherent and capable of withstanding rigorous cross-examination. It should not suffer from material contradictions and must align with surrounding circumstances and other evidentiary material. Only such a witness can be relied upon without corroboration.
(D) Delay in FIR – Effect
Paras 9, 10
The Court reiterated that mere delay in lodging the First Information Report is not by itself fatal to the prosecution case. Delay assumes significance only when it remains unexplained and gives rise to suspicion of embellishment or fabrication. Where the delay is satisfactorily explained in the factual matrix of the case, it cannot be used as a ground to discard the prosecution version.
(E) Ocular evidence versus medical evidence
Para 11
It was held that minor inconsistencies between ocular testimony and medical evidence do not affect the prosecution case. The Court observed that where the eyewitness account is reliable and trustworthy, it prevails over medical opinion, which is advisory in nature. In the present case, both versions were found broadly consistent in establishing that the deceased was shot on the head.
(F) Non-examination of independent witnesses
Para 12
The Court held that non-examination of independent witnesses does not necessarily weaken the prosecution case. Judicial notice was taken of social realities, particularly the reluctance of ordinary persons to come forward as witnesses in criminal cases involving violence and intimidation. The absence of independent witnesses, therefore, is not fatal when the prosecution evidence is otherwise reliable.
(G) Scope of interference under Article 136
Para 5
The Court reiterated that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, it does not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. Interference is warranted only when such findings are shown to be perverse or suffering from manifest error.
(H) Liability in group assault
Paras 1, 13
The Court affirmed that participation in a group attack with common intention and use of deadly weapons attracts liability under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Even if the fatal blow is attributed to a particular accused, others sharing the common object remain equally liable.
FINAL DISPOSITION
Para 14
The appeals were dismissed and the conviction and sentence awarded by the Courts below were affirmed.
No comments:
Post a Comment