On 13th October 2020, the Supreme Court of India in the case of AMAR SINGH vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) comprising of a three Bench judge of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari held that Conviction Can Be Based On Sole Eye Witness Testimony Only If He Is Wholly Reliable.
Factual Background
In this case, three eye-witnesses were examined before the Trial Court. Two of them turned hostile. However, the court convicted the accused duo on the sole testimony of an eyewitness. The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction. The Apex Court bench, while considering an appeal, noted the settled legal position that a Court can and may act on the testimony of a single eye witness provided he is wholly reliable.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
Shri Dushyant Dave, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that the entire incident appears to be inherently improbable. It is also pointed out that conduct of PW-1 alleged eye witness either at the time of the incident or immediately thereafter is not natural and does not inspire confidence which makes his presence on the spot extremely doubtful. The other two eyewitnesses have turned hostile and nothing could be elicited from their cross-examination by the prosecution. It was further submitted that the conviction and sentence of the appellants based upon the sole testimony of one eye witness, whose conduct was unnatural and inconsistent with the ordinary course of human nature making his presence at the site of incident extremely doubtful, is highly unsafe without corroboration from other pieces of evidence.
Submissions on behalf of the respondent
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State vehemently contended that two Courts have recorded a concurrent finding of guilt of the accused-appellants based on the testimony of an eye witness which they found to be reliable and there exists no legal impediment for conviction on the basis of the same. She further submitted that evidence of a hostile witness is not to be discarded as a whole and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law can be relied upon by the prosecution. She further submitted that the conviction cannot be assailed merely because of some lacuna in the investigation and any failure or omission of the investigating officer cannot render the prosecution case doubtful or unworthy of belief, in a case where the prosecution case is fully established by direct testimony of eye witness duly corroborated by medical evidence.
Court Analysis
As a general rule, the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single eye witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony Courts will insist on corroboration. It is not the number, the quantity but quality that is material. The time honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible, and trustworthy, or otherwise.
It seems very unnatural that two brothers present on the spot will not even make the slightest attempt to intervene and try to save the other brother being assaulted, merely on the threat extended by the assailants armed with hockey sticks and a knife. This unnatural conduct totally against natural human behaviour casts a serious doubt of shadow on the presence of eye witnesses on the spot at the time of occurrence.
There was a medical clinic of Doctor Bhardwaj just nearby the place of incident and the first endeavour of the two brothers would have been to take the injured brother to the clinic for immediate medical aid or try and get some medical aid from the clinic of Doctor Bhardwaj.
Judgment
The Court held that in view of the foregoing discussions, we are not able to appreciate the reason given by the Courts below for convicting the appellants for the alleged offences. On the contrary, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The incident does not appear to have happened in the manner in which the prosecution wants the Court to believe it had happened.
Since the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond doubt the appellants, therefore, must be given benefit of doubt. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned orders of the Courts below and allow these appeals. The appellants are directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :
Picture Source :
