The division judge bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari of the apex court in the case of State through the Inspector of Police Vs Laly @ Manikandan & Another Etc held that as per settled position of law, there can be a conviction on the basis of the deposition of the sole eye witness, if the said witness is found to be trustworthy and/or reliable.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent were put on trial for the murder or attempted murder of Saravanan, who had passed away. The prosecution claimed that Selvakumar was murdered as a result of hostility between Periyavan @ Murugan and Selvakumar, the accused's friend. Suspecting that the deceased Saravanan had disclosed Selvakumar's whereabouts, the accused surrounded the car that the deceased, PW1, and another person were travelling in, dashed it, and used aruvals to break the windscreen. The deceased Saravanan attempted to flee, but the accused pursued him, and as a result of the injuries he sustained, the deceased Saravanan passed away immediately. Thereafter, the charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 506(2), 302 IPC r/w 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. the trial court convicted the accused and furthermore, the accused preferred the appeal before the high court and the high court acquitted the accused.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state has vehemently contended that the high court has committed a grave error in acquitting the accused. It was further submitted that the prosecution has fully established the case by examining the witnesses. The incident allegedly took place in two stages. The deceased, PW1, and another person were travelling in a car when A1 injured the deceased on the right shoulder. The second part of the incident occurred when the accused pursued the deceased as he was attempting to flee and reached a shed. All three accused entered the shed, injured the deceased, and then they exited the shed and fled. It is asserted that PW1 was present at both locations and had witnessed the occurrence of the incident at both locations. It is argued that there is no reason to doubt the testimony of PW-1. The counsel further relied upon the judgment titled Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original accused submitted that the high court has given cogent reasons while acquitting the accused. It is submitted that out of the six witnesses examined by the prosecution as eye witnesses, three witnesses – PW2, PW3 and PW5 have not supported the case of the prosecution. It is submitted that PW4 has been disbelieved even by the learned trial Court due to material contradictions in his deposition and the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused that even the recovery of weapon cannot be said to have been proved by the prosecution. The reliance was made upon the judgment titled Kunju Muhammed v. State of Kerala.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The court rejected the submission made by the counsel appearing on behalf of the original accused that original informant – Mahendran has not been examined and that the other independent witnesses have not been examined and that the recovery of the weapon has not been proved and that there is a serious doubt about the timing and place of the incident, the accused are to be acquitted cannot be accepted. Merely because the original complainant is not examined cannot be a ground to discard the deposition of PW1. Similarly, assuming that the recovery of the weapon used is not established or proved also cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when there is direct evidence of the eyewitness. Recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offense is not a sine qua non to convict the accused. If there is direct evidence in the form of an eye witness, even in the absence of recovery of the weapon, the accused can be convicted. Similarly, even in the case of some contradictions with respect to the timing of lodging the FIR/complaint cannot be ground to acquit the accused when the prosecution case is based upon the deposition of an eye witness. As per settled position of law, there can be a conviction on the basis of the deposition of the sole eye witness, if the said witness is found to be trustworthy and/or reliable. As observed hereinabove, there is no reason to doubt the credibility and/or reliability of PW1. Therefore, it will be safe to convict the accused on the sole reliance of deposition of PW1. The high court’s decision was quashed and set aside.
CASE NAME- State through the Inspector of Police Vs Laly @ Manikandan & Another Etc
CITATION- CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1750-1751 OF 2022
CORUM- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
DATE-14.10.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :