Delhi High Court
Satish Kumar Khurana vs The State on 22 August, 2022
$~S~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 22.08.2022
+ CRL.A. 1107/2019
SATISH KUMAR KHURANA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashish Dutta, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
J U D G M E N T
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI J.
By way of the present appeal under section 374(2) read with
section 383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 („CrPC‟), the
appellant Satish Kumar Khurana, assails judgement of conviction dated
01.05.2019 and order on sentence dated 07.05.2019 rendered by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (NDPS), Dwarka
Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 440781/16 titled „State vs. Satish
Kumar Khurana' emanating from F.I.R No. 225/2012 registered at P.S.:
Bindapur under sections 324/307/302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(„IPC‟).
2. By way of the impugned judgement the appellant was convicted for
committing the murder of one Sanjay Goel s/o Ram Avtar Goyal
(„victim/deceased‟) by inflicting deadly injury using two knives and a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNITA RAWAT
Signing Date:22.08.2022
14:34:23
meat „chopper‟. By way of the sentencing order the appellant was
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under section
302 IPC alongwith fine of Rs.50,000/-, with a default sentence of simple
imprisonment for 03 months; and further, to rigorous imprisonment for
03 years for offence under section 307 IPC alongwith fine of Rs.20,000/-,
with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for 02 months; in
addition to rigorous imprisonment of 01 year for the offence under
section 324 IPC alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/-, with a default sentence of
simple imprisonment for 01 month. Affording to the appellant the benefit
of section 428 CrPC, all sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Prosecution Case :
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the evening of 21.07.2012 between
6:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., the appellant, who owned and ran a store under
the name and style of „Prerna Fashion‟ at the Sriram Complex located at
Arya Samaj Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, entered the complex and
started attacking the victim with two knives [Exb. PW-8/I and Exb. PW-
8/K] and a meat „chopper‟ [Exb. PW-8/L], which caused multiple serious
injuries to the victim and ultimately led to his death. It is the prosecution
case that the appellant attacked the victim for speaking ill of the
appellant‟s wife.
4. The incident is stated to have been witnessed by : PW-1 Sh. Kamal
Kishore Verma, who was the owner of a neighbouring store and also an
injured eye-witness; by PW-2 Sh. Rajkumar Dabbas who is also stated to
have been an eye-witness, who however turned hostile during trial; by
PW-3 Sh. Deepak Chawla, also a neighboring store-owner and injured
eye-witness; and by PW-4 Sh. Pawan Nagpal, again a neighboring store-
owner and injured eye-witness.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNITA RAWAT
Signing Date:22.08.2022
14:34:23
5. It is the prosecution‟s case that when the appellant entered the Sriram
Complex at about 6:30/7:00 pm on 21.07.2012 and started attacking the
victim, PW-1 attempted to intervene; whereupon the appellant also
attacked PW-1 with the meat „chopper‟ and knives, due to which PW-1
sustained injuries on his chest and right hand, at which point he retreated
into his shop. The meat „chopper‟ is stated to have fallen inside PW-1‟s
shop.
6. Subsequently, PW-3 states that he also saw the appellant hitting the
victim as well as PW-1; and when PW-3 attempted to intervene, the
appellant assaulted him as well with the knife and caused injuries on PW-
3‟s abdomen and right hand.
7. Similarly, PW-4 is also stated to have attempted to intervene and the
appellant is stated to have assaulted PW-4 on his neck and chest.
8. Apart from that, the prosecution says that PW-9 HC Mahendar Singh,
who was the Beat Constable of the area, was on patrol duty at the time of
the incident, and arrived at the Sriram Complex in time to see the
appellant running away from the victim and towards the back of the
complex; at which point, it is alleged that PW-2 stopped the appellant but
to no avail; and in pursuit of the appellant, PW-9 raised his service pistol
towards the appellant in warning, after which the appellant laid-down the
knives he was carrying and was apprehended by PW-9.
9. Upon receipt of DD. No. 36-A [Exb. PW-23/A], Ct. Giriraj [PW-8] along
with Insp. Jatinder Kumar [PW-22] arrived at the Sriram Complex at
around 8:15 p.m., where PW-9 HC Mahender Singh produced the
appellant as well as the two daggers/knifes which were recovered from
the appellant on the spot. At this point, because of the growing crowd, the
appellant was sent-off to the police station in an Emergency Response
Vehicle for his safety.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNITA RAWAT
Signing Date:22.08.2022
14:34:23
10. Thereafter, PW-22 is stated to have gone to the Deen Dayal Upadhyay
Hospital („DDU Hospital‟) where the victim, PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4
were admitted but only PW-1 was found fit to give a statement. After
recording PW-1‟s statement, PW-22 went to Kalra Nursing Home where
PW-2 was admitted but he too was not fit for recording his statement.
11. Upon returning to the spot, PW-22 is stated to have prepared a rukka
[Exb. PW-1/A, 7/A, 22/A] pursuant to which F.I.R No. 225/2012 was
registered [Exb. PW-6/A]. Thereafter, PW-1 also returned to the spot of
the incident; and PW-22 made a rough site-plan [Exb. PW-22/B] on PW-
1‟s instructions. The crime team was also called to inspect the spot and
take photographs [Exb. PW-19/A1 to A15]. PW-22 then collected an
earth control sample and a blood sample on a cotton swab [seized vide
Seizure Memo Exb. PW-8/A].
12. Prior to being taken to the DDU Hospital, PW-1 handed to PW-11 Const.
Rinku, the „chopper‟ type knife used by the appellant, that had fallen into
his store. [seized vide Seizure Memo Exb. PW-8/M]
13. The appellant was arrested at the police station on 22.07.2012 by PW-22
and his personal search was conducted. [Arrest Memo and Personal
Search Memo are Exb. PW-1/B and Ex-8/B respectively]. At the time of
the appellant‟s arrest, two visiting cards of „Prerna Fashion‟ were
recovered from his possession, on the reverse of one of which were
written the words :"Jin logon ne mujhe pareshan kiya hai unki jaankari
diary mein likhi hai" and on the other was written "agar mere bachche
mare jate hain to unka antim sanskar in paison se kar dein" [seized vide
Seizure Memo Exb. PW-8/F].
14. Upon the appellant‟s disclosure statement [Exb. PW-8/G] a diary is stated
to have been recovered from the appellant‟s shop „Prerna Fashion‟ located
in the Sriram Complex [seized vide Seizure Memo Exb. PW-8/H].
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNITA RAWAT
Signing Date:22.08.2022
14:34:23
15. Simultaneously on 21.07.2012, the victim Sanjay Goel was taken to the
DDU Hospital and was treated for his injuries, as documented in his MLC
[Exb. PW-25/A].
16. However, at about 6:40 a.m on 22.07.2012, information was received
from the DDU Hospital stating that the victim Sanjay Goel had
succumbed to his injuries, which was recorded as DD No. 10A [Exb.
PW-7/B]. Pursuant to this information, section 302 of the IPC was added
to FIR No. 225/2012 and PW-22 handed-over the investigation to PW-30,
Inspector Subhash Chand.
17. In his post-mortem report [Exb. PW-28/A] PW-28 Doctor B.N Mishra,
has opined that "(t)he cause of death is due to haemorrhagic shock
associated with compromised mechanical respiratory function as result of
tearing of multiple vital organs and fractured multiple ribs consequent
upon multiple incised stab wounds and blunt impact on the chest.", while
also observing that 60 to 70% of the injuries sustained by the deceased
were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. PW-28 has
also stated that the manner of death is „homicide‟ and that
brutality/cruelty on the part of the assailant cannot be ruled-out.
18. On 23.07.2012, PW-30 Insp. Subhash Chand is stated to have collected
the MLC of PW-2 from Kalra Nursing Home, in which it was opined that
the nature of injuries was „dangerous‟, and that the victim had suffered a
"3&½ inches stab wound depth till peritoneum ... and very active and
profuse bleeding" [Exb. PW-26/A]. PW-30 also made an application for
recording PW-2‟s statement [Exb. PW-30/A]. On 24.07.2012, PW-30
collected the MLC of PW-3 from the DDU Hospital, in which it was also
opined that the nature of PW-3's injuries was „dangerous‟ [Exb. PW-
25/C]. PW-3 also moved an application at the B.L.K Memorial Hospital
for recording PW-3‟s statement [PW-30/B]. On the same day PW-30
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNITA RAWAT
Signing Date:22.08.2022
14:34:23
collected the MLC of PW-4 from DDU Hospital, in which also it was said
that the nature of PW-4‟s injuries was „dangerous‟ [Exb. PW-25/B]. PW-
30 also moved an application for collecting PW-4‟s statement [Exb. PW-
30/C]. PW-1‟s MLC was proved by PW-5 Dr. Neeraj Garg, wherein it
was opined that the nature of PW-1‟s injuries was „simple‟ and that the
injuries were caused by sharp and blunt weapons.
19. On 26.07.2012 PW-30 moved an application before PW-28, the Doctor at
the DDU Hospital, requesting an opinion on the weapons of offence and
the clothes of the deceased. In his opinion dated 28.07.2012, PW-28
states that "... nothing came (sic) be suggestive of that the produced
weapons of offence (knives) would (sic) not be used for inflicted of
injuries on the body of deceased and cuts on the clothes produced. As the
weapons of offence is consistent for injuries mentioned in PM report and
tears on the clothes." Also, when shown the clothes of PW-2 and PW-3,
PW-28 opines that "... the cut marks (tears) as mentioned above could
have possibly inflicted (sic) by the knives marked "S-1 & S-2" (as per the
sketch diagram of the same) during instance of assault." [The opinion of
PW-28 is Exb. PW-28/E and PW-28/F].
20. On the same day, the DDU Hospital also handed-over to PW-30 a sealed
envelope containing a blood sample of the deceased, which PW-30 is
stated to have deposited in the malkhana. [seized vide Seizure Memo
Exb. PW-17/A]
21. On 29.08.2012 PW-30 along with PW-9 and PW-14 Sh. Hardeep Singh,
an assistant draftsman, went to the site of the incident, pursuant to which
PW-14 drew-up a scaled site-plan of the Sriram Complex [Exb. PW-
14/A].
22. On 03.09.2012, PW-30 moved an application to collect handwriting
specimens of the appellant [Exb.PW-30/F], which application was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNITA RAWAT
Signing Date:22.08.2022
14:34:23
subsequently allowed by the court and the appellant‟s handwriting
samples were taken and marked as S-1 & S-2 [Exb. PW-30/H-6 and PW
-30/H-7 respectively] and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory
(„FSL‟) to compare the appellant‟s handwriting with the handwriting on
the two visiting cards of „Prerna Fashion‟ which were recovered from the
appellant at the time of his arrest. Thereafter, FSL Report No. 2012/D-
7076 dated 09.10.2014 was received, which records that "The person
who wrote the blue enclosed Hindi writings & English signatures
stamped and marked as S1 & S2 also wrote the red enclosed Hindi
writings & English signature ..." [Exb. PW-30/H2].
23. According to the prosecution, on 11.10.2012 PW-2 went to the police
station and handed-in his blood-stained clothes, which pullanda was
sealed and deposited in the malkhana [Exb. PW-2/A]. On the next day, a
Doctor from Kalra Nursing Home handed-over a blood sample of PW-2
in a sealed pullanda which was seized and deposited in the malkahana
[seized vide Seizure Memo Exb. PW-30/G]. The two pullandas were
sent to the FSL, which generated a report, being FSL 2012/B-7613 dated
19.12.2012, which records that the blood found on the clothes and the
blood sample of PW-2 were both of blood-group „O‟.
24. PW-30 also sent other evidence collected during the course of
investigation to the FSL, namely the clothes of the appellant, the clothes
of the injured witnesses and the weapons of offence. FSL Report dated
28.02.2013 received in respect thereof records that all exhibits had
'human blood‟ on them and the blood type was identified as „Group-B‟
for the clothes; whereas on the weapons of offence, no blood type was
discernible [FSL Report is Exb. PW-30/H4].
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNITA RAWAT
Signing Date:22.08.2022
14:34:23
25. During investigation, PW-30 moved an application seeking PW-28‟s i.e.
the doctor‟s final opinion as to the nature of injuries on PW-3 and PW-4
[which application is Exb. PW-30/H].
Proceedings in trial :
26. Charges were framed on 05.12.2012, to which the appellant pleaded „not
guilty‟ and claimed trial.
27. In support of its allegations, the prosecution produced 30 witnesses, while
the defence did not marshal any witness.
28. The appellant‟s statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on
15.04.2019, wherein he denied all allegations; and stated that the case
against him was false; and that he was not present in the market on the
day of the alleged incident and was one km away from the scene of the
crime.
29. An overview of the relevant prosecution witnesses is as follows :
Witness No. Witness Name/ Relevance
PW-1 Kamal Kishore Verma Neighbouring shop-owner
and injured eye-witness
PW-2 Raj Kumar Dabbas Neighbouring shop-owner
and injured eye-witness;
turned hostile in court
PW-3 Deepak Chawla Neighbouring shop-owner
and injured eye-witness
PW-4 Pawan Nagpal Neighbouring shop-owner
and injured eye-witness
PW-5 Dr. Neeraj Garg Verified PW-1‟s MLC
PW-8 Ct. Giriraj Police officer; first responder
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNITA RAWAT
Signing Date:22.08.2022
14:34:23
PW-9 H.C Mahendra Singh Police witness who
apprehended the appellant
PW-11 Ct. Rinku Police officer; first responder
PW-20 Dr R K Srivastav MLC doctor for PW-2
PW-22 Insp. Jatinder Kumar Investigating Officer.
PW-25 Dr. Sanjay Rai MLC doctor for victim
PW-28 Dr. B N Mishra Post-mortem doctor
PW- 30 Insp. Subhash Chand Investigating Officer
30. It is pertinent to mention that PW-2 turned hostile and did not support the
prosecution version during trial.
Trial court findings :
31. Shorn of unnecessary detail, the appellant‟s conviction is based
essentially on the following evidence :
i. Ocular evidence: The learned trial court finds that the testimonies
of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 are coherent, consistent and entirely
support the prosecution case.
ii. Recovery of weapons: The learned trial court also finds the
testimony of the witnesses and of the police personnel in relation
to recovery of the weapons of offence to be consistent; and holds
that the two knives and the meat „chopper‟ recovered were not
planted on the appellant.
iii. Motive: The learned trial court also holds that the two visiting
cards recovered from the appellant at the time of the incident and
the diary recovered pursuant to the appellant‟s disclosure
statement, show that the appellant had motive to commit the
offence because of statements made about his wife‟s fidelity; and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNITA RAWAT
Signing Date:22.08.2022
14:34:23
that the appellant had pre-planned the offence by buying the
knives before the commission of the offence.
32. We have heard Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr. Ashish Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. We
have also perused the impugned judgment and have carefully gone
through the evidence on record, assessing the merits and demerits of the
evidence marshalled by both sides.
Arguments on behalf of the appellant:
33. Learned counsel for the appellant has made the following submissions
challenging the conviction :
i. In their respective court depositions,PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 make
no mention of the others; and instead narrate the same story viz.
that when they attempted to intervene to help the victim, the
appellant also attacked them. The absence of any reference to
each other‟s presence in their court testimonies creates doubt as to
their credibility as eye-witnesses.
ii. PW-2 has turned hostile and does not support the prosecution
case.
iii. In his cross-examination PW-3 states that "I was having serious
injury on my body so I could not explain as to how I sustained
injury on my person nor I can tell the name of the assailant."
which, according to the appellant, creates doubt as to the
credibility of PW-3‟s testimony.
iv. All material witnesses have deposed that the appellant was very
good natured and did not misbehave with other people in the past.
v. FSL Report dated 28.02.2013 records that though human blood
was found on the alleged weapons of offence, i.e. the two knives
and meat „chopper‟, the blood-grouping for the same was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNITA RAWAT
Signing Date:22.08.2022
14:34:23
inconclusive. This creates doubt as to whether these weapons
were definitively used to commit the offence.
vi. The contents of the diary allegedly recovered pursuant to the
appellant‟s disclosure statement, were not shown to the appellant;
nor were the contents read-out to the court. In order to have
exhibited the diary, the prosecution ought to have shown what
was written in it, which was not done.
vii. In the appellant‟s statement under section 313 Cr.P.C, the only
questions put to him were regarding the recovery of the diary but
nothing about the contents of the diary; and therefore whatever
was written in the diary cannot be relied upon.
Arguments made on behalf of the prosecution:
34. Urging the court to uphold the appellant‟s conviction and sentence, the
learned APP has made the following submissions:
i. PW-1 was an injured eye-witness to the incident, who correctly
identified the appellant in court and also identified the weapons of
offence i.e. the two knives and a meat „chopper‟ when shown.
ii. PW-3 was also an injured eye-witness to the incident, who also
correctly identified the appellant in court. PW-3 stated in his court
testimony that when he tried to intervene, the appellant assaulted
him with the knife and caused injuries to his right hand and
abdomen.
iii. PW-4 was yet another injured eyewitness to the incident, who yet
again correctly identified the appellant in court. PW-4 said that at
the time of the incident, when he attempted to intervene to help the
victim, the appellant assaulted him and caused injuries to his neck
and chest.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNITA RAWAT
Signing Date:22.08.2022
14:34:23
iv. PW-9, a police officer who arrived at the Sriram Complex and
apprehended the appellant, also correctly identified the appellant in
court; and also identified the weapons of offence.
v. PW-25, who was the emergency doctor at the DDU Hospital,
opined that the victim‟s injuries were „sharp‟ in nature and referred
him to surgery for further treatment. PW-28, the post-mortem
doctor, opined that the manner of death is homicide, and brutality
(on the part of the appellant) cannot be ruled-out. When shown the
weapons of offence, PW-28 opined that there is nothing that belies
that the two knives and meat „chopper‟ could have been used to
cause the injuries on the deceased. PW-28 also opined that the said
weapons of offence were consistent with the cuts on the clothes and
the injuries on the deceased. PW-28 also opined that the cut marks
on the clothes of PW-3 and PW-4 could have been inflicted by the
said weapons during an assault.
vi. PW-20, the doctor who examined PW-2, opined in the MLC that
the nature of injuries was „dangerous‟ and that PW-2 had multiple
stab injuries on his chest and abdomen. This clearly indicates the
seriousness of the injuries inflicted by the appellant. PW-5, the
Medical Officer who attended to PW-1, opined in PW-1‟s MLC
that the weapons used to inflict some of the injuries were sharp and
the other injuries were caused by a blunt weapon.
vii. The appellant‟s clothes which were seized from him on the day of
the incident, had blood stains on them. The two knives recovered
from the appellant, and also the meat „chopper‟ produced by PW-1
as handed to PW-11, also had bloodstains on them. The FSL
Report as regards the clothes belonging to the appellant and to the
injured persons, records that the blood detected on such clothes was
of the same group, i.e. Group-B.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNITA RAWAT
Signing Date:22.08.2022
14:34:23
viii. Police witness PW-8, who arrived at the scene of the incident to
find that PW-9 had apprehended the appellant, corroborates PW-
9‟s testimony; and correctly identified the accused in court.
Discussion & Conclusions :
35. From the foregoing it is seen that the decision of the learned trial court in
the present case hinges on 03 principal categories of evidence:
i. Ocular evidence;
ii. Medical evidence; and
iii. Forensic Evidence.
36. In the present case the prosecution has marshalled 04 injured eye-
witnesses, viz. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, all of whom are owners of
shops in the vicinity of the scene of crime in the Sriram Complex. Three
of the four injured eye-witnesses, viz. PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 have given
fairly cogent and consistent testimonies in court, which have remained
un-rebutted in cross-examination. However, PW-2 who was yet another
neighbouring shop-owner, turned hostile and reneged on his earlier
statements. In their statements PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 have said that on
the evening of 21.07.2012 between 06.30 p.m. and 08.00 p.m. the
appellant entered the Sriram Complex and attacked the victim with two
knives and a meat „chopper‟ causing multiple serious injuries; and also
that when they attempted to intervene, each of them sustained injuries as
detailed in their depositions. The injuries sustained by PW-3 and PW-4
have been documented and have been opined as being „dangerous‟ by the
attending doctors and PW-1‟s injuries have been said to be „simple‟.
37. Although it has been contended on behalf of the appellant, that since in
their statements PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 do not acknowledge each other‟s
presence at the scene of the crime at the relevant time, that dents the
credibility of their statements and creates doubt as to whether they were
eye-witnesses. Furthermore, it is contended that in his cross-examination,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNITA RAWAT
Signing Date:22.08.2022
14:34:23
PW-3 does not explain as to how he sustained the injuries on his person
nor does he disclose the name of the assailant. This, it is contended, yet
again creates doubts as to the credibility of PW-3‟s testimony.
38. For one, the very contention that the aforesaid three eye-witnesses do not
acknowledge the presence of each other at the scene of the crime is not
borne-out by the record, in as much as a reading of PW-1‟s statement
shows that PW-1 does mention PW-3 and PW-4 in his testimony when
he says :"I have also seen Pawan Nagpal and Deepak Chawla having
injuries on their persons. Deepak Chawla was having injuries on his
stomach and he was holding the same and there was heavy bleeding."
39. Before assessing the value of the testimonies of the injured eye-witnesses,
it would benefit to briefly set-out the position of law as regards injured
eye-witnesses and also as to whether evidence is to be „counted‟ or
„weighed‟. The relevant portions of some seminal judgments of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in this regard are extracted below.
In Abdul Sayeed vs. State1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court says :
"30. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony
of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a
consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee
of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not
want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a
third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the
injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for
rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and
discrepancies therein."
(emphasis supplied)
In Vadivelu Theva vs. State of Madras 2 the Hon'ble Supreme
Court says :
"11. In view of these considerations, we have no hesitation in holding that the
contention that in a murder case, the court should insist upon plurality of
witnesses, is much too broadly stated. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence
(2010) 10 SCC 259
AIR 1957 SC 614
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNITA RAWAT
Signing Date:22.08.2022
14:34:23
Act, has categorically laid it down that "no particular number of witnesses
shall, in any case, be required for the proof of any fact". The legislature
determined, as long ago as 1872, presumably after due consideration of the
pros and cons, that it shall not be necessary for proof or disproof of a fact, to
call any particular number of witnesses. In England, both before and after the
passing of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there have been a number of
statutes as set out in Sarkar's Law of Evidence -- 9th Edn., at pp. 1100 and
1101, forbidding convictions on the testimony of a single witness. The Indian
Legislature has not insisted on laying down any such exceptions to the general
rule recognized in Section 134 quoted above. The section enshrines the well
recognized maxim that "Evidence has to be weighed and not counted". Our
Legislature has given statutory recognition to the fact that administration of
justice may be hampered if a particular number of witnesses were to be
insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence
of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon
occurrence, where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial
evidence. If the legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses, cases
where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the
crime, would go unpunished. It is here that the discretion of the presiding
judge comes into play. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of
each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony
has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court
to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the
accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be
proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused
person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a
considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of
the case for the prosecution. Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-
established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not
with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact.
Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three
categories, namely:
(1) Wholly reliable.
(2) Wholly unreliable.
(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
"12. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in
coming to its conclusion either way -- it may convict or may acquit on the
testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion
of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the
court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third
category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for
corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or
circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses.
Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNITA RAWAT
Signing Date:22.08.2022
14:34:23
were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be
indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. Situations may arise and do
arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a
disputed fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and
if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend
to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon
such testimony. The law reports contain many precedents where the court had
to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the
prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual
offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the
oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in
crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes
the duty of the court to convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single
witness is entirely reliable. We have therefore, no reasons to refuse to act
upon the testimony of the first witness, which is the only reliable evidence in
support of the prosecution."
(emphasis supplied)
40. In the opinion of this court, in the present case, even discounting the
testimonies of PW-2 (who turned hostile) and PW-3 (who did not
completely turn hostile but gave a somewhat pusillanimous version of his
earlier statement), the fact that there are two injured eye-witnesses, viz.
PW-1 and PW-4, who gave clear, consistent and convincing testimonies
as regards the role of the appellant in the offence, is more than sufficient
to bring home guilt. As explained by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the
aforementioned decisions, an injured eye-witness enjoys special status
and a high degree of credibility as a witness, inasmuch as the presence of
such witness at the scene of the offence is ordinarily beyond doubt
(provided the court is satisfied that the injury was sustained by the eye-
witness in the same incident); and furthermore, an injured eye-witness is
unlikely to implicate a wrong person to shield the actual accused.
Moreover, as also explained by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, evidence is
to be weighed not counted and therefore even a sole injured eye-witness
could be sufficient to convict an accused.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNITA RAWAT
Signing Date:22.08.2022
14:34:23
41. It is seen that in this case, medical evidence comprised in the MLC, the
post-mortem report and the opinion as to the weapons of offence, is also
consistent and points conclusively to the appellant‟s guilt. Medical
evidence shows that the victim‟s death is homicidal; that the injuries on
his person have been caused by the two knives recovered from the
appellant and the meat „chopper‟ recovered from PW-1‟s shop; and the
concerned doctor has also opined that the weapons recovered are
consistent with the nature of injuries sustained by the victim and by the
injured eye-witnesses.
42. If there were any need for re-affirmation, which is not necessary in a case
based on ocular evidence, the appellant is also shown to have had motive
to harm the victim, as evidenced by the visiting cards found on his person
and the diary recovered pursuant to his disclosure statement, on which
the appellant had recorded his intention to harm the victim for allegedly
having made derogatory statements about his wife‟s infidelity.
43. In fact, the appellant was caught on the spot, with the proverbial
„smoking gun‟ as it were, viz. the two knives, by PW-9, a police officer
who arrived at the Sriram Complex and apprehended the appellant
virtually in flagrante delicto.
44. Upon a conspectus of the foregoing, this court finds no basis or reason to
disagree with the inferences arrived at by the learned trial court
convicting the appellant of the offences under sections 302/307/324 IPC;
nor with the sentence meted-out for such offences.
45. Accordingly, judgment of conviction dated 01.05.2019 and sentencing
order dated 07.05.2019 are upheld; and the present appeal is dismissed;
without however, any orders to costs.
46. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNITA RAWAT
Signing Date:22.08.2022
14:34:23
47. A copy of this judgment be given to learned counsel for the parties and be
uploaded on the website of this court expeditiously.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
AUGUST 22, 2022
ds/Ne
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNITA RAWAT
Signing Date:22.08.2022
14:34:23
