Case: State of Maharashtra Vs. Dinesh

other by the State seeking enhancement of sentence against the accused. By the judgment impugned herein, the High Court while dismissing the appeal of the State, allowed the appeals filed by the Accused and acquitted them of the charges. 4. Dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, three criminal appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 1871 of 2013, against the Respondent herein who is Accused No. 2, Criminal Appeal No. 1872 of 2013 (against Accused No. 1) and Criminal Appeal No. 1873 of 2013 (against Accused No. 1) have been filed before this Court by the State of Maharashtra. In view of failure of the State despite according several opportunities to furnish correct address of Accused No. 1 for effecting service in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1872 and 1873 of 2013, the Judge-in-Chamber of this Court finally passed an order dated 15th December, 2016 in the following terms: Learned Counsel for the Appellant is granted four weeks further time, finally, to furnish the latest and correct address of the unserved common sole Respondent in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1872 and 1873 of 2013, failing which, the Criminal Appeal Nos. 1872 and 1873 of 2013 shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. 5. In spite of the aforesaid order, the Appellant State of Maharashtra has not complied with the directions of Judge-in-Chamber. Consequently, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1872 and 1873 of 2013 stood dismissed for non prosecution. Hence, we are now concerned with Criminal Appeal No. 1871 of 2013 only against Respondent herein i.e. Accused No. 2. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant-State as well as learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-accused, and gone through the material on record. 7. Undoubtedly, out of 23 prosecution witnesses, the evidence of PW7 Pushpabai is crucial in this case as she was presented as the sole eye-witness who had seen the Accused No. 2 along with Accused No. 1, cutting the corpse of the deceased into pieces. Apparently, there was no other witness who had last seen the Accused in the company of deceased prior to the place and time of occurrence. When the entire case hinges on the evidence of a sole witness, a paramount duty is cast on the Court to carefully scrutinize such evidence and find out whether such evidence is worth credence or not. Before assessing the evidence of PW7, we find it appropriate to note some of the views expressed by this Court on this aspect. 8. In Joseph v. State of Kerala, (2003) 1 SCC 465 this Court has observed 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. In State of Haryana v. Inder Singh, (2002) 9 SCC 537 this Court has 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. In Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 4 SCC 257 this Court, after taking note of the aforementioned two judgments, observed that "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 eyewitness 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".It is well settled that it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the evidence which is required to be judged by the court to place credence on the statement [Seeman @ Veeranam v. State, by Inspector of Police, (2005) 11 SCC 142 ]. 9. In light of the above, the evidence of PW7 Pushpabai in the present case needs to be considered. Admittedly, PW7 had witnessed the crime being committed by the Accused at about 10.30 p.m. in the night and there was no electricity at the alleged scene of offence. According to PW7, her husband also witnessed the crime, but they could not identify whether the Accused were cutting into pieces the body of a dead person or an alive person. Even after watching the brutal crime, neither PW7 nor her husband had raised hue and cry in the vicinity which was stated to be thickly populated, but they went to sleep peacefully and thereafter led normal life. There is also no dispute that PW7 did not identify the Respondent herein accused No. 2 and her statement was recorded after a gap of one and half month from the date of incident. 10. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the evidence of PW7, we have also considered the circumstances of the entire case and also the evidences of other prosecution witnesses. We find from the record that husband of P.W. 7, who was also stated to be an eyewitness to the incident, was neither examined by police at the time of investigation, nor even before the Court and no satisfactory explanation for his non-examination is found on record. Apart from this, even, test identification parade was not conducted and no steps were taken to prove the blood group of the deceased with the blood stains found on the alleged weapon used in the crime. 11. Thus, in the foregoing circumstances, especially taking note of the unnatural manner in which PW7 kept quiet till one and half month after the incident, that too in the midst of thickly populated vicinity, it is not safe to convict an Accused solely relying on her evidence. Thus, we find no firm ground in this appeal or reason to believe the testimony of alleged eyewitness PW7 calling for our interference in the judgment passed by the High Court.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]6. We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant-State as well as learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-accused, and gone through the material on record7. Undoubtedly, out of 23 prosecution witnesses, the evidence of PW7 Pushpabai is crucial in this case as she was presented as the sole eye-witness who had seen the Accused No. 2 along with Accused No. 1, cutting the corpse of the deceased into pieces. Apparently, there was no other witness who had last seen the Accused in the company of deceased prior to the place and time of occurrence. When the entire case hinges on the evidence of a sole witness, a paramount duty is cast on the Court to carefully scrutinize such evidence and find out whether such evidence is worth credence or not. Before assessing the evidence of PW7, we find it appropriate to note some of the views expressed by this Court on this aspect9. In light of the above, the evidence of PW7 Pushpabai in the present case needs to be considered. Admittedly, PW7 had witnessed the crime being committed by the Accused at about 10.30 p.m. in the night and there was no electricity at the alleged scene of offence. According to PW7, her husband also witnessed the crime, but they could not identify whether the Accused were cutting into pieces the body of a dead person or an alive person. Even after watching the brutal crime, neither PW7 nor her husband had raised hue and cry in the vicinity which was stated to be thickly populated, but they went to sleep peacefully and thereafter led normal life. There is also no dispute that PW7 did not identify the Respondent herein accused No. 2 and her statement was recorded after a gap of one and half month from the date of incident10. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the evidence of PW7, we have also considered the circumstances of the entire case and also the evidences of other prosecution witnesses. We find from the record that husband of P.W. 7, who was also stated to be an eyewitness to the incident, was neither examined by police at the time of investigation, nor even before the Court and no satisfactory explanation for his non-examination is found on record. Apart from this, even, test identification parade was not conducted and no steps were taken to prove the blood group of the deceased with the blood stains found on the alleged weapon used in the crime11. Thus, in the foregoing circumstances, especially taking note of the unnatural manner in which PW7 kept quiet till one and half month after the incident, that too in the midst of thickly populated vicinity, it is not safe to convict an Accused solely relying on her evidence. Thus, we find no firm ground in this appeal or reason to believe the testimony of alleged eyewitness PW7 calling for our interference in the judgment passed by the High Court.