Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard two appeals arising from a single incident that occurred on 3 August 1989 at Sangam Hotel, Dharuhera. The appellant, Parveen, along with two associates, Dhirender and Parkash, allegedly came to the hotel in a tractor at about 11:00 p.m., demanded empty glasses and cigarette packets, and after being refused empty glasses due to prohibition of liquor, started consuming their own liquor. When hotel owner Siri Narain protested, the appellant went to the tractor, brought a double barrel gun, loaded it, and fired at Siri Narain, who escaped by stretching on the ground. The incident was witnessed by several persons, but during trial only Siri Narain supported the prosecution; all other eyewitnesses turned hostile. The police registered an FIR, arrested the accused, seized the double barrel gun and one empty and one live cartridge, and sent them to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Two separate charge-sheets were filed: one under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act read with Section 5 of TADA before the Designated Court, Faridabad at Narnaul; and another under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code before the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul. Both trials were conducted by the same Additional Sessions Judge in different capacities. The Designated Court convicted the appellant under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced him to two years rigorous imprisonment, acquitting him under Section 5 of TADA. The Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 307/34 IPC (the judgment text at one point mentions Section 207, which appears to be a typographical error) and sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 1,000, in default six months further RI, and directed the substantive sentences in both trials to run concurrently. Co-accused Dhirender died during trial and proceedings abated against him; co-accused Parkash was acquitted and the State did not appeal against his acquittal. The appellant challenged both convictions, contending that no independent witness supported the charge, all other eyewitnesses had turned hostile, seizure memos were false, and conviction could not be based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of Siri Narain. The State supported the judgments. The Supreme Court found Siri Narain's evidence consistent, unshaken in cross-examination, and corroborated by the investigating officer and the ballistics report. The Court held that evidence of hostile witnesses could not be relied upon and that conviction could be based on the sole testimony of a credible witness, especially when corroborated by seizure and forensic evidence. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed, the convictions were upheld, and the appellant was directed to surrender if on bail.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Arms Act Offence - Conviction Based on Sole Testimony Despite Hostile Witnesses - Indian Arms Act, 1959, Section 25 - The appellant challenged conviction under Section 25 Indian Arms Act on the ground that all eyewitnesses except complainant Siri Narain (PW 2) turned hostile and seizure memos were false. The Supreme Court found the complainant's evidence consistent and corroborated by investigating officer SI Rai Singh and Assistant Director (Ballistics) report; evidence of hostile witnesses could not be relied upon. Held that conviction under Section 25 Indian Arms Act was proper and the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment was not disproportionate (Paras 3-10). B) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Conviction Based on Sole Testimony of Injured Witness Without Independent Corroboration - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 307/34 - The transferred case concerned conviction under Section 307/34 IPC where other eyewitnesses turned hostile and sole testimony of complainant Siri Narain (PW 3) was challenged. The court found the complainant's testimony trustworthy, corroborated by seizure of double barrel gun and cartridges and forensic report; it held that conviction could be based on the sole testimony of a credible witness. Held that no independent corroboration was required and the appeal was dismissed (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code could be sustained on the sole testimony of the complainant/injured witness despite other eyewitnesses turning hostile, and whether the seizure and forensic evidence corroborated the prosecution case.
Final Decision
Both the criminal appeal and transferred case were dismissed. Convictions under Section 25 Indian Arms Act and Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code were upheld. The appellant, if on bail, was directed to surrender to his bail bonds forthwith to serve out the remaining period of sentence.
Law Points
- Conviction can be based on sole testimony of a credible witness
- especially when corroborated by official witnesses and forensic evidence
- evidence of hostile witnesses cannot be relied upon
- seizure memos and ballistics report can corroborate ocular evidence
- concurrent sentences upheld.
