Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to the murder of Bal Kishan, son of informant Mullo Bai, which occurred on 01.12.2005 at around 4-5 a.m. in Village Hinotiya Gird. The prosecution alleged that the appellants (original accused Nos. 2 to 5) along with accused No.1 Bal Kishan, while sharing a common object, caused the death of the deceased. The sole eyewitness was Mullo Bai (PW8), the mother of the deceased, who claimed to have seen the incident in the light of a torch. The trial court convicted all accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, relying solely on PW8's testimony. The High Court confirmed the conviction for accused Nos. 2 to 5. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that PW8's testimony was full of contradictions, omissions, and improvements. She gave inconsistent statements regarding the identification of the appellants, the source of light (torch vs. chimney light), and the specific roles of the appellants. The Court noted that PW8 did not state in her deposition that the appellants were carrying lathis, yet the High Court relied on her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement to that effect, which is not admissible as substantive evidence. Additionally, there was no recovery of any torch from the scene, and the prosecution failed to prove common object among the accused. The Court held that it was unsafe to convict the appellants solely on the unreliable testimony of PW8, especially when no independent witness supported the prosecution case. The Court distinguished the case of the appellants from that of accused No.1, against whom there was consistent evidence and recovery of the weapon. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellants, and acquitted them, giving them the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Sole Eyewitness - Conviction based on sole eyewitness testimony is permissible if the witness is reliable and trustworthy - However, in the present case, the sole eyewitness PW8 (Mullo Bai) gave contradictory statements regarding identification of accused, source of light, and role of appellants - Her testimony suffered from material omissions and improvements - Held that it is unsafe to convict the appellants solely on such unreliable evidence (Paras 13-16). B) Criminal Law - Common Object - Section 149 IPC - For conviction under Section 302 r/w Section 149 IPC, the prosecution must prove common object of unlawful assembly - In the absence of cogent evidence regarding common object, appellants cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 149 IPC - Held that mere presence at the spot is not sufficient to establish common object (Para 16). C) Evidence Law - Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. - Admissibility - Statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is not substantive evidence and cannot be relied upon to prove facts - The High Court erred in relying on PW8's Section 161 statement to conclude that appellants were carrying lathis - Held that such reliance is impermissible (Para 15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants (original accused Nos. 2 to 5) under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC solely based on the testimony of sole eyewitness PW8 (Mullo Bai) is sustainable when her evidence is full of contradictions, omissions, and improvements, and no other independent witness supports the prosecution case.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and acquitted the appellants (original accused Nos. 2 to 5) of all charges, giving them the benefit of doubt. Their bail bonds were discharged.
Law Points
- Conviction based on sole eyewitness
- Reliability of witness testimony
- Section 302 r/w Section 149 IPC
- Common object
- Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement admissibility
- Appreciation of evidence
- Benefit of doubt
