Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed two criminal appeals filed by Amar Singh and Inderjeet Singh against the judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had affirmed their conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that on 3 August 1990, the deceased Devinder Singh @ Ladi was attacked by the appellants and one Shiv Charan (since deceased) with hockey sticks and a knife near Sukhdev Market, Delhi. The incident was allegedly witnessed by the deceased's brothers Parminder Singh (PW-1) and Amar Singh (PW-11), and another person Sujan Singh (PW-5). However, PW-11 and PW-5 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. The sole remaining eye witness, PW-1, testified that he saw the appellants giving blows to the deceased. The trial court convicted the appellants, and the High Court upheld the conviction. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that the conduct of PW-1 was unnatural, that there was unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and that the sole testimony of a related witness was unreliable without corroboration. The State contended that concurrent findings of fact should not be disturbed. The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments, held that the testimony of PW-1 was reliable and consistent with the medical evidence. The court found that the conduct of PW-1 in not immediately taking the deceased to a nearby clinic was not unnatural given the circumstances. The delay in lodging the FIR was satisfactorily explained. The court also noted that the evidence of hostile witnesses cannot be discarded entirely but in this case did not help the prosecution. The court concluded that there was no perversity in the concurrent findings and dismissed the appeals, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Conviction on Sole Testimony of Related Eye Witness - Section 302 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC - The court examined whether the conviction based solely on the testimony of PW-1, a brother of the deceased, was sustainable when two other eye witnesses turned hostile. The court held that the testimony of a related witness is not inherently unreliable and can form the basis of conviction if it inspires confidence. The conduct of PW-1 was found to be natural and consistent with the prosecution case. The court also noted that the evidence of hostile witnesses is not to be discarded entirely, and relevant parts can be relied upon. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below. (Paras 10-16) B) Criminal Law - Investigation - Delay in Lodging FIR - Effect on Prosecution Case - The court considered the argument of unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and despatching a copy to the magistrate. It held that mere delay does not vitiate the prosecution case if the delay is satisfactorily explained and the evidence is credible. In this case, the delay was not fatal as the prosecution case was established by direct testimony. (Paras 6, 13) C) Criminal Law - Evidence - Hostile Witness - Value of Testimony - Sections 154, 155 Evidence Act, 1872 - The court reiterated that the evidence of a hostile witness is not to be rejected in toto; portions that are admissible and corroborative can be used by the prosecution. However, in this case, the hostile witnesses did not support the prosecution, and their testimony did not provide any corroboration. (Paras 14-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC based on the sole testimony of a related eye witness, whose conduct was alleged to be unnatural and whose presence at the spot was doubted, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment. The court found no perversity in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court.
Law Points
- Conviction can be based on sole testimony of a related eye witness if found reliable
- Evidence of hostile witness not to be discarded as a whole
- Lacuna in investigation does not render prosecution case doubtful if direct testimony is credible
