Case: State of U.P Vs. Satveer &amp; Others

Court in Joseph v. State of Kerala (2003) 1 SCC 465 )that where there is a sole witness his evidence has to be accepted with an amount of caution and after testing it on the touchstone of other material on record. Further, in State of Haryana v. Inder Singh (2002) 9 SCC 537 )it was laid down that the testimony of a sole witness must be confidence inspiring and beyond suspicion, thus, leaving no doubt in the mind of the Court. Noticing these two Judgments this Court in Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 4 SCC 257 )summed up the principles as under: “The principles stated in these judgments are indisputable. None of these judgments say that the testimony of the sole eyewitness cannot be relied upon or conviction of an accused cannot be based upon the statement of the sole eye-witness to the crime. All that is needed is that the statement of the sole eye-witness should be reliable, should not leave any doubt in the mind of the Court and has to be corroborated by other evidence produced by the prosecution in relation to commission of the crime and involvement of the accused in committing such a crime.” The evidence of the sole witness thus needs to be considered with caution and after testing it against other material and further, such evidence must inspire confidence and ought to be beyond suspicion. 12. We now proceed to examine the testimony of the sole witness in the context of the material on record. According to PW2 Mewa Ram he was sitting on a bench in front of the clinic of a doctor with Vijaypal when he saw Akash being led inside the baithak by the respondents. Apart from his own testimony nothing has been placed on record by the prosecution which could lend corroboration to his own presence and the content of his version. First, no reason has been given why Mewa Ram and Vijaypal were sitting on the bench outside the clinic of the doctor. Neither the doctor nor Vijaypal were examined. Beyond the testimony of the witness himself there is nothing to indicate whether PW2 Mewa Ram was actually there at the relevant time or not. Secondly, the place from where he allegedly witnessed the occurrence is not a natural place where either the witness resides or carries on any vocation. The reason for his being there is not placed on record. Again the reason for his continuing to be there for 20-25 minutes is also not spelt out. Thirdly, none from the house of Akash was examined nor did PW1 Roop Basant throw any light as to when Akash left the house and in whose company was he playing. Neither has the prosecution given the names of those children nor has anybody else been examined to say that he had seen the children playing at the place in question. There is nothing on record which could corroborate that Akash was actually present with other children. Fourthly, there is nothing to indicate how far was the house of Akash and whether that was the normal place where Akash would always be playing. Lastly, if the incident created chaos in the village so much so that the villagers went and thrashed the respondents, there is no reason why none of them was examined. 13. As regards his version about the incident, the manner in which it statedly occurred, the involvement of the respondents--whether all or some of them, we have nothing on record which could possibly allow us to test the veracity of the version of the sole witness. To us, it is doubtful whether PW2 Mewa Ram could be called a natural and truthful witness and could be completely relied upon. The movements of Akash are also not established to show that he was actually there as suggested by the witness. Since PW2 Mewa Ram is the sole witness and the entire case depends on his testimony, we have looked for even minutest detail which could possibly lend corroboration. We have however not been able to locate any such material. In order to evoke confidence and place intrinsic reliance on the testimony of this sole witness, we tried to find some corroboration on material particulars, which unfortunately is lacking. The assessment of the entire material has left many doubts and questions unanswered. Two facts, that the baithak was of ownership of the respondents and that the body of Akash was found there, though very crucial, cannot by themselves be sufficient to fix the liability. The baithak was not part of the house, was across the road and apparently accessible to others. And importantly, presence of respondents--whether some or all of them, has not been fully established.14. Now the other features on record need consideration. The respondents were apprehended the same day when one of them i.e. respondent Sanjay was allegedly found to be in possession of blood stained dharati or sickle. According to the prosecution the weapon was blood stained and was kept in the folds of dhoti by said Sanjay. However, no such blood stained dhoti of respondent Sanjay was recovered. For that matter no blood stained clothes were recovered from any of the respondents though they were supposed to be authors of the crime which left body of Akash in a pool of blood. Even the blood stains found on the cemented portion from Chamunda Math, though of human origin, were quite disintegrated as per FSL examination.15. In the circumstances and particularly when we are considering an appeal against acquittal, the interference in the present case would be justified and called for, only if we were to find the testimony of the sole witness of such character that it could be fully relied upon. In the present matter where the accused are being tried for an offence punishable with capital punishment, the scrutiny needs to be stricter. In our view the material on record definitely falls short and the respondents are entitled to benefit of doubt.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]9. In the instant case two facts were accepted to have been proved on record by the trial court as well as the High Court, namely, (a) the dead body of Akash was found inside the baithak and (b) said baithak belonged to the respondents. The prosecution has examined only one witness i.e. PW2 Mewa Ram who can throw some light. The spot panchnama Ext. Ka-15 shows that on one side of the road is the house of the respondents next to which is Chamunda Math and on the other side of the road is the baithak in question. Thus, according to the sole witness he saw respondent Subhadra coming from her house on one side of the road and then proceeding across the road towards the baithak holding the arm of Akash. According to him the respondents were inside the baithak for some 20-25 minutes, and when they went towards Chamunda Math i.e. to the other side of the road, he and Vijaypal could immediately enter the baithak and see the dead body lying in a pool of blood, which meant that the baithak was not locked at all.As regards his version about the incident, the manner in which it statedly occurred, the involvement of the respondents--whether all or some of them, we have nothing on record which could possibly allow us to test the veracity of the version of the sole witness. To us, it is doubtful whether PW2 Mewa Ram could be called a natural and truthful witness and could be completely relied upon. The movements of Akash are also not established to show that he was actually there as suggested by the witness. Since PW2 Mewa Ram is the sole witness and the entire case depends on his testimony, we have looked for even minutest detail which could possibly lend corroboration. We have however not been able to locate any such material. In order to evoke confidence and place intrinsic reliance on the testimony of this sole witness, we tried to find some corroboration on material particulars, which unfortunately is lacking. The assessment of the entire material has left many doubts and questions unanswered. Two facts, that the baithak was of ownership of the respondents and that the body of Akash was found there, though very crucial, cannot by themselves be sufficient to fix the liability. The baithak was not part of the house, was across the road and apparently accessible to others. And importantly, presence of respondents--whether some or all of them, has not been fully established.14. Now the other features on record need consideration. The respondents were apprehended the same day when one of them i.e. respondent Sanjay was allegedly found to be in possession of blood stained dharati or sickle. According to the prosecution the weapon was blood stained and was kept in the folds of dhoti by said Sanjay. However, no such blood stained dhoti of respondent Sanjay was recovered. For that matter no blood stained clothes were recovered from any of the respondents though they were supposed to be authors of the crime which left body of Akash in a pool of blood. Even the blood stains found on the cemented portion from Chamunda Math, though of human origin, were quite disintegrated as per FSL examination.15. In the circumstances and particularly when we are considering an appeal against acquittal, the interference in the present case would be justified and called for, only if we were to find the testimony of the sole witness of such character that it could be fully relied upon. In the present matter where the accused are being tried for an offence punishable with capital punishment, the scrutiny needs to be stricter.