Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging the judgment passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh where the High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants.
Brief Facts:
Amol Singh stated in the FIR that when he was returning from Basoda, he had met his brother Bhagat Singh (deceased) and had also met Akhe Singh. When they reached village Ratanpur, he was walking ahead, followed by Akhe Singh, who in turn, was followed by Bhagat Singh. He heard the cries of his brother Bhagat Singh and when he turned, he saw Shambhu Rajput hitting Bhagat Singh with a ballam. Accused Santosh, Lakhan, Mahendra and Pritam had also assaulted Bhagat Singh with ballam, causing injury on front side of the body. When the accused charged to assault the complainant Amol Singh and Akhe Singh started running for their life and reached village Budhor and narrated the incident to Deewan Singh, Pooran Singh, Mokam Singh, etc. All of them had come back to the spot of incident and found Bhagat Singh dead. Charges were framed against all the 11 accused for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The Trial Court acquitted Bharat Singh, Vishwanath Singh, Dashrath Singh, Padam Singh, Bana Lal alias Bana Singh and Pappu alias Kuber Singh. The Trial Court convicted Mahendra Singh, Pritam Singh, Santosh, Shambhu Singh and Lakhan Singh for the offences punishable under Section 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Trial Court, all the convicted accused filed an appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. By the impugned judgment dated 6th August, 2019, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has dismissed the appeal.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire conviction of the appellants is based on the sole testimony of Amol Singh. He submitted that Amol Singh is the real brother of the deceased Bhagat Singh and therefore his testimony has to be scrutinized with greater care, caution and circumspection.
The learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of SC in the case of Vadivelu Thevar vs. The State of Madras. It was submitted that the testimony of the said witness falls in the category of “wholly unreliable” witness and as such, the conviction on the basis of the testimony of such a witness could not be sustainable. It was argued that there is also a doubt as to whether the FIR in the present case is a real FIR or not. Delayed FIR would create a doubt about the trustworthiness of the prosecution case.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the learned Trial Court as well as the High Court have rightly relied on the testimony of Amol Singh. It was submitted that merely because a minor contradiction/ inconsistency cropped up in the evidence of the witness, it cannot be a ground to disbelieve the truthfulness of the testimony of such a witness. It was submitted that the maxim “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” is not accepted in India. She therefore submitted that grain has to be separated from the chaff to find out the truth from the testimony of the witness.
SC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides SC stated that this Court has found that witnesses are of three types, viz., (a) wholly reliable; (b) wholly unreliable; and (c) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. When the witness is “wholly reliable”, the Court should not have any difficulty inasmuch as conviction or acquittal could be based on the testimony of such single witness. SC also stated that equally, if the Court finds that the witness is “wholly unreliable”, there would be no difficulty inasmuch as neither conviction nor acquittal can be based on the testimony of such witness. It is only in the third category of witnesses that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial.
SC stated that it is a settled law that same treatment is required to be given to the defence witness(es) as is to be given to the prosecution witness(es). From the evidence of witnesses, SC observed that Amol Singh could not have witnessed the incident.
SC found that the evidence of Amol Singh would fall in the category of “wholly unreliable” witness. As such, no conviction could be based solely on his testimony. The corroboration sought by the High Court from the medical evidence was not justified. The medical evidence could only establish that the death was homicidal. However, it could not have been used to corroborate the version of Amol Singh that he has witnessed the incident. Insofar as the contention of learned DAG for the respondent State that the prosecution has proved the motive is concerned, it is well settled that only because motive is established, the conviction cannot be sustained.
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “we find that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and as such, the accused are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. The impugned judgment dated 6th August, 2019, delivered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh is quashed and set aside.”
Case Title: Mahendra Singh and Ors. v. State of M.P.
Bench: J. B.R. Gavai and J. Hima Kohli
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.764 OF 2021
Decided on: 03rd June, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
