Not Permissible to Convict Accused on Witness’s Testimony Based on Conjectures & Surmises When Co-Accused Are Granted Benefit Of Doubt On Basis Of Same Witness’s Evidence: SC
The Supreme Court acquitted a murder accused and held that if the Court comes to a conclusion that it is difficult to believe that the witness could have witnessed the incident in the manner narrated by him and granted benefit of doubt to co-accused persons then conviction of accused on the basis of the evidence of the very same witness only on the basis of conjectures and surmises is not permissible.
The Appeal before the Apex Court challenged the judgment of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court whereby the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the Trial Court was partly allowed and his conviction under Sections 294(b), 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was upheld.
The Division Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice K.V. Viswanathan said, “No doubt that a conviction could be based on the sole testimony of a witness. Equally the principle that falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in Indian criminal jurisprudence.”
Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate N.R.Elango represented the Respondent.
The genesis of the present case is the registration of an FIR by one Kovilraj (PW1) alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 342, 302 and 506(ii) IPC by the appellant, Rajarathinam and Albert. It was stated by PW-1 that he is a Church Member and Choir Master in Immanuel Church. He stated that he was in favour of Arputharaj in the Diocese Election, due to which the appellant, who supported the rival faction of Pushparaj entered into a quarrel with his son about a year prior to the day of the incident.
The incident is of the year 2015 when the accused along with some accused persons met the Informant’s son in a Consecration Festival and started abusing him. The appellant took out a knife, upon which the informant’s son ran owing to escape. However, he was caught by the accused persons. While the other two accused persons held the informant’s son, the appellant hacked the knife forcibly on the left side of his neck. The informant’s son was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead.
It was the appellant’s case that the Judges of the High Court disbelieved the testimony of Kovilraj (PW-1) insofar as accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned. However, on the basis of the same evidence, the appellant had been convicted.
The Judges of the High Court had given a finding that in the course of natural events, except the appellant herein (accused No.1), no one else could have caused the injury to the deceased. On this aspect, the Apex Court observed that the said finding was based purely on conjectures and surmises.
The Bench also observed that in the present case, on the basis of sole testimony of the same witness (PW-1), the appellant herein was convicted and the other two accused, involved in the same incident had been acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt. It was also noticed that while disbelieving the testimony of PW-1 qua accused Nos. 2 and 3, the High Court had taken note of the fact that the incident occurred 300 metres away from the Church and that could not have enabled PW-1 to have actually witnessed the overt act that was attributed to accused Nos.2 and 3. However, the appellant herein involved in the same overt act had been convicted on the basis of the same testimony of PW-1.
Further noting that in the present case, Kovilraj (PW-1) is the father of the deceased and is an interested witness, the Bench said, “No doubt that merely because a witness is an interested witness, it cannot be a ground to discard the testimony of such a witness. However, the testimony of such a witness has to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection.”
It was further stressed, “In the present case, when the High Court comes to a conclusion that it is difficult to believe that Kovilraj (PW-1) could have witnessed the incident in the manner narrated by him and granted benefit of doubt to accused Nos.2 and 3, the conviction of accused No.1 on the basis of the evidence of the very same witness only on the basis of conjectures and surmises, in our view, is not permissible.”
With regard to the seizure of the knife, the Bench noted that the recovery was made from an open place accessible to one and all and only on the basis of the circumstance of such a recovery, the conviction could not have been based.
Thus, holding that the High Court had grossly erred in convicting the appellant while giving benefit of doubt to accused Nos.2 and 3, the Bench allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant of all the charges levelled against him.
Cause Title: George v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 974]
Appearance:
Appellant:Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu, Advocate D Durga Devi, AOR Pranab Prakash
Respondents: Senior Advocate N.R.Elango, AOR Sabarish Subramanian, Advocates Vishnu Unnikrishnan, C. Kranthi Kumar, Danish Saifi,V.M. Eashwar, Aswani Satheesh