Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a murder conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellant exhorted co-accused Rajesh to kill the deceased Vineet, who was shot and died on the spot. The trial court convicted the appellant, and the High Court dismissed his appeal, leading to the present Supreme Court challenge. The core legal issue was whether the conviction based solely on the testimony of PW-3, Jitendra Singh, was sustainable given delays and inconsistencies. The appellant argued that other eyewitnesses turned hostile, and an independent witness (Raju Paanwala) was not examined, making PW-3's uncorroborated testimony insufficient. The respondent-State contended that concurrent findings should not be interfered with, noting the co-accused's appeal had been dismissed. The court analyzed the evidence, noting PW-3's statement was recorded two months post-incident without explanation from the Investigating Officer. PW-3 admitted staying home during this period and not reporting the incident despite proximity to the police station, raising doubts about his reliability. Inconsistencies emerged between his examination-in-chief and cross-examination regarding the accused's actions. The court held that conviction on the sole testimony of such a witness, without corroboration and given the inordinate delay, was unjustified. It emphasized that dismissal of a special leave petition does not affirm lower court views, allowing independent scrutiny. Consequently, the appellant was granted benefit of doubt, the conviction was quashed, and he was acquitted, with directions for release if not required in other cases.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Conviction Based on Sole Witness Testimony - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 34 - The appellant was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for exhorting co-accused to kill the deceased - The Supreme Court scrutinized the evidence and found that the sole eyewitness PW-3's testimony was unreliable due to inordinate delay in recording his statement, lack of explanation from the Investigating Officer, and inconsistencies in his account - Held that conviction on the sole testimony of such a witness without corroboration is not justified, and the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt (Paras 8-13). B) Criminal Procedure - Evidence - Delay in Recording Witness Statements - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The prosecution case involved an incident where the deceased was shot, and witness statements were recorded after a two-month delay - The court noted that PW-3 admitted to being at home during this period and did not report the incident despite proximity to the police station - The Investigating Officer provided no satisfactory explanation for the delay, rendering the witness unreliable (Paras 9-12). C) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 34 - The appellant was charged with murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for allegedly exhorting co-accused Rajesh to kill the deceased - The court found that the evidence against the appellant, primarily from PW-3, was insufficient to establish common intention due to the witness's unreliability and lack of corroboration - Held that the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 34 IPC based on such evidence (Paras 8-13). D) Supreme Court Practice - Special Leave Petitions - Dismissal Not Affirmation - The respondent argued that the appeal should be dismissed since a coordinate Bench had dismissed the special leave petition of co-accused Rajesh - The court clarified that dismissal of a special leave petition does not amount to affirmation of the lower courts' views and allowed scrutiny of evidence as leave was granted prior to the co-accused's dismissal - This enabled independent evaluation of the appellant's case (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on the sole testimony of PW-3, is sustainable given the inordinate delay in recording his statement, lack of explanation from the Investigating Officer, and the witness's conduct.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order are quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges and directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- reliability of sole witness testimony
- inordinate delay in recording witness statements
- conduct of witness
- corroboration requirement
- dismissal of special leave petition not amounting to affirmation
