1990 JTR(SC) 713
1991 CriLR 825 ; 1991 Supp1 SCC 200 ; 1991 SCC(Cri) 546
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.Jayachandra Reddy : M.Fathima Beevi : S.R.Pandian
Brijbasilal
Versus
State Of M.P.
Case No. : 717 of 1979
Date of Decision : 11/14/90
A criminal conviction can be based on the sole testimony of an interested witness, such as a relative of the deceased, provided the evidence is found to be reliable, wholly acceptable, and free from infirmity, as plurality of witnesses is not a legal necessity.
Act
Referred
:INDIAN PENAL CODE
: S.302
(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Murder - Conviction based on sole testimony of an interested witness - Plurality of witnesses is not necessary to prove a criminal charge and a conviction can be based even on the sole testimony of a witness provided the testimony of that witness is wholly acceptable - Testimony of the son of the deceased, though interested, can be acted upon if found reliable and free from any infirmity. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted of murder for firing gunshots at the deceased. During the trial, most witnesses turned hostile, leaving only the son of the deceased as the sole witness to the incident. The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the sole testimony of an interested witness should not have been accepted by the courts below.
Findings of Court:
The court found the evidence of the sole witness to be reliable and free from any infirmity, concluding that there was no reason to refuse to act upon the testimony merely because the witness was the son of the deceased.
Issues: Whether the conviction of the appellant could be sustained based solely on the testimony of an interested witness, specifically the son of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the number of witnesses is not decisive; the quality and reliability of the evidence are paramount. If the sole testimony of a witness is wholly acceptable and reliable, it is sufficient for conviction, regardless of the witness's relationship to the deceased.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted of murder for firing gunshots at the deceased. During the trial, most witnesses turned hostile, leaving only the son of the deceased as the sole witness to the incident. The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the sole testimony of an interested witness should not have been accepted by the courts below.
Findings of Court:
The court found the evidence of the sole witness to be reliable and free from any infirmity, concluding that there was no reason to refuse to act upon the testimony merely because the witness was the son of the deceased.
Issues: Whether the conviction of the appellant could be sustained based solely on the testimony of an interested witness, specifically the son of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the number of witnesses is not decisive; the quality and reliability of the evidence are paramount. If the sole testimony of a witness is wholly acceptable and reliable, it is sufficient for conviction, regardless of the witness's relationship to the deceased.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Evidence - The Supreme Court relied on this case to hold that plurality of witnesses is not necessary and conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a witness if it is wholly acceptable.
Sole-testimony - Established that plurality of witnesses is not necessary to prove a criminal charge and conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a witness provided the testimony is wholly acceptable.
(1) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment made in Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 1977 on the file of the High court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant challenging the correctness of the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under S. 302 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him imprisonment for life.
(2) THE appellant took his trial on a charge that on 7/08/1976 at about 7 p.m. he committed the murder of deceased, Vishwanath, who is the father of Public Witness 1 in the .village Kaprora by. firing gun shots. Though number of witnesses have been examined in support of the prosecution case, most of the witnesses have turned hostile except Public Witness 1 who is none other than the son of the deceased, Vishwanath.
(3) ACCORDING to Public Witness 1, he and his father while coming together from the bazar, the appellant herein fired four gunshots as a result of which the deceased died. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that both the courts below ought not to have accepted the sole testimony of Public Witness 1 whose evidence is highly interested as Public Witness 1 happens to be the son of the deceased. We went through the copy of the deposition furnished by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the impugned judgment meticulously. As pointed out by this court in Chinniah Servai v. State of Madras that plurality of witnesses is not necessary to prove a criminal charge and that a conviction can be based even on the sole testimony of a witness provided the testimony of that witness is wholly acceptable. Applying the above test, we, at the same time, bearing in mind the relationship of Public Witness 1 with the deceased, examined the evidence carefully and are satisfied that the evidence of Public Witness 1 is reliable and free from any infirmity. Therefore, we have no reason to refuse to act upon the testimony of Public Witness 1 merely on the ground that he is the son of the deceased. Since the evidence of Public Witness 1 is otherwise reliable and acceptable, we have no hesitation in agreeing with the finding of the High court.
(4) IN the result, we confirm the judgment of the High court and dismiss the appeal as devoid of any merit.