In a recent development, the Supreme Court, in a decision dated December 14, has emphasized the need for cautious examination of the testimony of a sole eyewitness who also happens to be the complainant. The court, consisting of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, underscored this cautionary approach particularly when the appellant/complainant is the father of the deceased and harbors a longstanding enmity with the accused parties.
The judicial bench affirmed the High Court’s decision to set aside the conviction of the accused individuals, who had been found guilty under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 302 pertaining to punishment for murder.
The court expressed, “It may not be out of context to mention that the appellant/complainant, a sole eyewitness, happens to be the most interested witness being the father of the deceased and having long enmity with the group to which the accused persons belong, therefore, his testimony was to be examined with great caution and the High Court was justified in doing so and in doubting it so as to uphold the conviction on his solitary evidence.”
The case revolved around a deep-seated enmity between two rival groups dating back to 1986. The conflict stemmed from a dispute over access to a public road, which had escalated over the years and culminated in the murder of Ram Kishan. Seeking revenge, the opposing group allegedly killed Kishan Sarup, leading to the registration of an FIR on November 5, 2000.
While the trial court had initially convicted six out of the ten accused persons, the High Court later overturned their convictions. The appellant/complainant then appealed to the Supreme Court against the acquittal.
The court rejected the appellant’s argument that appellate courts should not normally overrule convictions, especially when based on eyewitness evidence. Notably, the court pointed out that although the appellant was the sole eyewitness, he had not witnessed the actual killing of his son. The court further questioned why the complainant did not attempt to intervene and save his son during the assault, stating, “The statement that he could not do so on account of the threats extended by the accused persons appears to be a bald statement as no one in a situation where his son is being assaulted and carried away would remain a mere spectator.”
Additionally, the court highlighted inconsistencies in the appellant’s statement, where the use of a pistol by the accused was not mentioned in the FIR, despite the recovery of an empty cartridge by the police. The cause of death, as per postmortem, was determined to be firing from close range.
Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, both through circumstantial evidence and the testimony of the eyewitness. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused persons in the case of CHHOTE LAL vs. ROHTASH., Diary No.- 19514 – 2011.
