Case Note & Summary
The four appellants were tried along with two other accused by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gyanpur for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial court convicted all six accused. On appeal, the High Court partly allowed the appeal: it set aside the conviction under Section 148 IPC for the appellants, altered their convictions to Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC, and acquitted the remaining two accused. The four appellants then approached the Supreme Court challenging their conviction. The prosecution case was that on 8 September 1977 at about 8.00 A.M., Kamla Shankar Dubey (PW1), his brother Ram Surat Dubey (PW2) and their uncle Loghar Dubey (deceased) were attacked by six accused persons near the Mirzapur-Bhadohi Road. PW2 sustained firearm injuries, the deceased took refuge in the shop of Lalta and was killed. PW1 lodged the FIR; PW2's dying declaration was recorded by a Magistrate at District Hospital Varanasi. The trial court relied on the evidence of PW1 and PW2 as eyewitnesses despite their relationship to the deceased. The High Court disbelieved PW1 because his house was 2.5 furlongs away and he likely reached the scene after the incident; it relied solely on the testimony of PW2 to sustain the convictions, but acquitted two accused for lack of evidence of their actual participation. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the evidence of PW2 was of such sterling quality that it could form the sole basis for upholding the conviction. The appellants argued that PW2's testimony was not credible because it materially contradicted his earlier statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC as a dying declaration and that they were falsely implicated due to enmity. The State relied on the injured eyewitness's testimony as sufficient. The Supreme Court scrutinised the evidence of PW2 and noted glaring discrepancies: the sworn testimony placed the assault on the deceased inside the shop of Lalta, while the earlier statement said the deceased was shot and died on the road; the sequence of events differed; the post-assault location differed; and there were inconsistencies regarding the weapons used. When confronted with his earlier statement under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, PW2 claimed he was unconscious and denied making it. Medical Officer Dr. B.P. Singh (DW1) testified that PW2 was conscious when the dying declaration was recorded by the Deputy Collector, thereby demolishing the claim. The Court held that PW2's evidence was not of sterling quality and could not be the sole basis for conviction. It also reiterated the limited scope of Article 136 jurisdiction, but found that grave and palpable injustice would result if the convictions were sustained on such contradictory testimony. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellants of all charges, and directed their release forthwith.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder and Attempt to Murder - Evidentiary Standard for Sole Eyewitness - Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 302/34 and 307/34 - The High Court disbelieved one eyewitness and relied solely on the injured eyewitness PW2 to sustain conviction; the Supreme Court examined whether his testimony was of sterling quality and found it was not because of material contradictions with his earlier statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC as a dying declaration. Held that a conviction cannot be sustained on such unreliable sole testimony and the appellants were acquitted of all charges. B) Criminal Trial - Appreciation of Evidence - Contradictions Between Court Testimony and Prior Statement Under Section 164 CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 164; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 145 - The witness PW2 gave materially different accounts regarding the place of occurrence (road vs shop of Lalta), sequence of events, and position after assault, contradicting his earlier statement given to Magistrate as dying declaration. When confronted under Section 145 Evidence Act, he falsely claimed unconsciousness, refuted by medical officer Dr. B.P. Singh who testified he was conscious. Held that such contradictions destroyed the credibility of the sole eyewitness. C) Constitution of India - Special Leave Jurisdiction - Scope of Interference with Concurrent Findings - Constitution of India Article 136 - The Supreme Court noted that it does not reappraise evidence to disturb concurrent findings unless grave and palpable injustice has occurred. However, given the High Court's own finding doubting PW1 and the glaring contradictions in PW2's evidence, interference was justified to prevent miscarriage of justice. Held that Article 136 jurisdiction was properly exercised to acquit the appellants. D) Criminal Trial - Benefit of Doubt - Acquittal When Sole Eyewitness Unreliable - Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 302/34 and 307/34 - Because the only believable eyewitness's testimony was contradicted by his prior statement and the other eyewitness's presence was doubtful, the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Held that the appellants were entitled to benefit of doubt and acquittal; conviction and sentence set aside and release directed forthwith.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the evidence of the sole injured eyewitness (PW2) was of such sterling quality that it could be made the sole basis for upholding the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC, given material contradictions with his earlier statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellants of all charges, and directed that the appellants who were in jail be released forthwith.
Law Points
- Conviction cannot rest on sole eyewitness testimony unless it is of sterling quality
- material contradictions between court evidence and prior statement under Section 164 CrPC render witness unreliable
- Article 136 jurisdiction can be invoked to prevent grave and palpable injustice
- dying declaration recorded by Magistrate is admissible as previous statement and can be used for contradiction under Section 145 Evidence Act
- benefit of doubt must go to accused when evidence is not credible
