Case: PAPPU ALIAS SURENDRA Vs. STATE OF M.P., (S.C.)

Rohinton Fali Nariman, J. - Leave granted. 2. In the present case, the appellant has been convicted for the murder of one Chotebir. After examining the injured witnesses including the deceaseds wife, brother and PW3, based only on the testimony of PW3, both the courts below held that the appellant is guilty of murder and life imprisonment given for the same by the Trial Court was confirmed by the High Court. It needs to be stated here that PW3 is the only person, being a cousin of the deceased, who stated that he actually saw the appellant murdering the deceased. However, he was declared hostile by the prosecution, after which, in cross-examination, he stated as follows: Chotebir was the son of my real uncle. At the moment of occurrence of the incident, I and Chotebir were talking with each other while having heads downward. My attention was drawn towards when Chotebir fell down. I neither saw the accused coming nor I could see him assaulting Chotebir. I saw Chotebir falling and saw the accused Pappu escaping from there when he was at distance equal to the vacant place in this Court. About 30-40 feet away, as has been mentioned by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. I saw the accused from behind when he was escaping. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of M.P. has persuasively argued this case, and has submitted to us that there are several judgments of this Court in which it is clear that even though a witness may be declared hostile, the first part of his testimony, if otherwise reliable, can be relied upon. There is no quarrel with the aforesaid proposition. The only problem in this case is that to convict a person solely on the basis of the testimony of a witness, who is not independent, in the sense of being a cousin of the deceased, and who has made a 360 degree turn around becomes very difficult. It may be added that no other witness claimed to have seen the appellant actually murdering the deceased. Recovery of an axe from the appellant was not proved, despite the fact that an axe with blood upon it was recovered. It was fairly stated that the dying declaration which was allegedly made was correctly shot down by the Trial Court.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]There is no quarrel with the aforesaid proposition. The only problem in this case is that to convict a person solely on the basis of the testimony of a witness, who is not independent, in the sense of being a cousin of the deceased, and who has made a 360 degree turn around becomes very difficult. It may be added that no other witness claimed to have seen the appellant actually murdering the deceased. Recovery of an axe from the appellant was not proved, despite the fact that an axe with blood upon it was recovered. It was fairly stated that the dying declaration which was allegedly made was correctly shot down by the Trial Court.