It is the quality of evidence that is of relevance, not the number of witnesses: Supreme Court of India

The appellant A2 assails his conviction and sentence under Sections 302 34 324 34 325 34 and 323 IPC to life imprisonment and lesser punishments. Four accused persons were put on trial the appellant being one of them for an occurrence that took place on 23.10.2006 at about 4.00 pm. Two persons were deceased and three injured Accused no. 3 and accused no. 4 who are not before us have The genesis of the occurrence lay in certain lands purchased by PW­1 from the father of the appellant. Peeved and assaulted PW­1 his wife PW­4 their 12 years old son Ramashankar who was deceased within twenty four hours during course of treatment and their minor daughter. The Ramdas the brother of PW­1 and shot him dead in presence possessed of a lathi only. Two of the co­accused A3 and A4 were armed with a country­made pistol and an axe assault with lathis is omnibus. It cannot be said with has been implicated at the behest of the village sarpanch His defence of alibi has not been considered properly. All three witnesses being related false implication is evident because none of the independent witnesses have been examined. The defence of the appellant under Section 313 the lands all of them assaulted PW­1 PW­4 their daughter appellant was well aware of the co­accused carrying a 6. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the The appellant was unhappy that his father had sold lands to PW­1 and wanted them back. The four accused PW­4 and her two children came to the rescue of PW­1 Ramashankar on the head with the blunt edge and sharp edge of an axe respectively. The appellant and A1 also the second deceased Ramdas the brother of PW­1. Accused The post­mortem report of the deceased Ramdas i. Contusion 8x6 cm on right arm (inflicted with ii. Contusion 6x5 cm in mid of left arm (inflicted the right brow (inflicted with hard and blunt 4x2 cm injury which was stitched on the right both been found to be reliable and truthful. We see no reason why they would falsely implicate another when the deceased was their own minor son. Similarly PW­2 is the son of the second deceased an eye witness to the killing of his father at home. The failure to examine any available the evidence and not the number of witnesses that is then immediately proceeded to the house of the second The recovery of a bloodstained lathi and bloodstained clothes of the appellant on his confession leaves us satisfied on a cumulative appreciation of the evidence that the accused were actuated by a common intention. The conviction of the appellant therefore calls for that he is 72 years old. Notwithstanding our refusal to interfere with the conviction and sentence if the appellant makes an application for premature release it is for the

Summary: ‘The failure to examine any available independent witness is inconsequential. It is the quality of the evidence and not the number of witnesses that is relevant.’ This unassailable principle was upheld by the Supreme Court of India in the Special leave petition (Crl.) presided over by J. R.F. Nariman and J. Navin Sinha in the case of Asharam Tiwari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [Crl.A. No. 29/2021]. In this instance, the appellant had been convicted for the murder of two and assaulting three persons along with three co-accused. The genesis of the occurrence lay in the purchasing of land by the deceased from appellant’s father. The appellant along with co accused armed with weapons, barged into their land premises demanding it back and on refusal, committed offence under section 302, 324, 325 and 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant contended that at the time of the occurrence of crime, he possessed a lathi whereas the co accused were armed with country made pistols and therefore had no common intention with the other three accused. Further the credibility of the witnesses was questioned by the appellant as all the witnesses were the family members of the deceased.