Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed appeals by accused Kali Prasad Singh and Santosh Kumar Singh against their conviction under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Surendra Singh. The incident occurred on 18 February 2000 at about 10 p.m. near the house of Pramod Dubey in Varanasi. The prosecution case, based on the testimony of the deceased's brother Rajendra Singh (PW-1), was that the accused fired at the deceased's neck and temple from close range. Constable Nepal Singh (PW-3) corroborated the presence of PW-1 and the accused fleeing. The Sessions Court convicted both accused, awarding life imprisonment, and the High Court affirmed. The appellants argued that the FIR was ante-timed, the solitary eye witness was unreliable, there was no source of light for identification, and the absence of blackening on wounds indicated no close-range firing. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions. It held that the correction in the FIR time was made at the time of recording, supported by carbon copy and general diary entry, negating ante-timing. The testimony of PW-1 was found truthful, consistent, and corroborated by PW-3 and medical evidence. The court noted that light from Pramod Dubey's house with a 2.5 feet boundary wall was sufficient for identification. The absence of blackening was explained by the deceased wearing a jacket. The court upheld the conviction, finding no reason to interfere.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Solitary Eye Witness - Testimony of a solitary eye witness can form the basis of conviction if found reliable and corroborated by other evidence - The court held that PW-1's testimony was truthful, consistent, and corroborated by PW-3 and medical evidence, thus sufficient to sustain conviction (Paras 15-16). B) Criminal Procedure - First Information Report - Ante-Timing - Allegation of ante-timed FIR rejected where correction in time was made at the time of recording and supported by carbon copy and general diary entry - The court found no scope for ante-timing within two hours of the incident (Para 14). C) Evidence - Identification - Source of Light - Sufficiency of light for identification depends on facts - The court held that light from a house with a 2.5 feet boundary wall was sufficient for identification, and minor discrepancies in wall heights were immaterial (Para 17). D) Criminal Law - Murder - Gunshot Wounds - Blackening of Skin - Absence of blackening on entry wounds does not negate close-range firing if the deceased was wearing a jacket - The court accepted the High Court's reasoning that the jacket prevented blackening (Para 13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC based on the testimony of a solitary eye witness is sustainable when the FIR is alleged to be ante-timed and the source of light for identification is disputed.
Final Decision
Appeals dismissed. Conviction under Section 302 IPC and life imprisonment upheld.
Law Points
- Solitary eye witness testimony
- reliability of FIR
- ante-timing of FIR
- source of light for identification
- blackening of skin in gunshot wounds
- corroboration of evidence
