Conviction on the sole testimony of witnesses are subjected to higher scrutiny

Kandeep Shravan | SASTRA Deemed to be University | 2nd July 2020

Jagdish and Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana

Facts:

Two of the appellants were convicted for an assault under Indian Penal Code sections 148, 149 and 302. Originally there were around 13 accused, out of that six were charge- sheeted and two of them were tried by the juvenile court, seven of the accused were summoned under Section 319. Three persons were convicted by the trial court, out which one was acquitted by the High Court. It was stated by the Counsel for Appellants that once the other accused was acquitted, the other two appellants cannot and should not be convicted under section 149 of IPC. The High Court made an error by convicting them under section 34 without framing a charge under the respective section.

However, there was lack of evidence to establish that there was common intention, exhibiting a prior meeting of the minds for committing the assault. It was found out that two of the prosecution witnesses were not eye-witnesses as they arrived only after the incident occurred. Not only the did the parties reside in the same locality but also knew each other. Further, animosity existed between them because the son of the second appellant had written love letters to P.W 1’s daughter. In early 1995, a squabble took place between the parties which lead to the lodging of police cases against both the parties. For an incident which occurred in the middle of 1995, the appellants were charged and proceeded with under sections 107 and 151 of the C.r.p.c. When the deceased had been released on bail after previous incident, it was stated he was returning from P.W 1’s house. The assault had taken place then

Issues:

• Can a person be convicted solely on the evidence of a solitary doubtful eye-witness?

Observation:       

It was observed by the Supreme Court that the conviction of the Appellants on the evidence of a doubtful solitary witness and ruling out false implication cannot be upheld. This was because of existing previous animosity the between the P.W 1 and the deceased. It was felt that sensitivity of the injuries, including chiselled wounds by the two accused was considered highly improbable. Generalized allegations were made by the P.W 1 in the F.I.R that the assault was committed by all the 13 accused who surrounded the deceased. But the court statement by P.W 1 was more specific with regard to the nature of assault made by each of the accused. Around 11 injuries were found on the body of the deceased. The injuries were incised wounds. It was observed that both the appellants were armed with lathis alone and this would have not caused incised wounds. Hence, it was observed by the Court that this was a mob assault and not an assault by the two appellants alone.

Judgment:

The High court order was set aside due to being found unsustainable. The Supreme court approved the acquittal of the accused and were ordered to be released. The Appeal was allowed.