Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to an incident on 18th June, 1995, during a Jagjit Singh night program in Nainital, where the deceased Rajesh Sah intervened when some boys were passing indecent remarks at girls. This led to an altercation, and later, when Rajesh Sah and his friends were leaving, they were assaulted by a group of about 56 boys with lathis and dandas. Rajesh Sah sustained severe head injuries and succumbed to them in the hospital. The appellant, Pratap Singh @ Pikki, along with three others, was tried for offences under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, and 323/149 IPC. The trial court convicted the appellant and Vikas Kirola under Section 304 Part II/34 IPC, sentencing them to 10 years rigorous imprisonment, while acquitting the other two. The High Court of Uttarakhand confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant, but granted the benefit of juvenility to Vikas Kirola. The appellant challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court, arguing that the sole testimony of injured eyewitness PW3 Harshvardhan Verma was uncorroborated and that he was a juvenile on the date of the incident. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting that PW3's testimony was consistent with the FIR and medical evidence, and that he was an injured witness, which lent credibility to his account. The court also considered the appellant's claim of juvenility based on a birth certificate obtained in 2010, but found that the High Court had correctly relied on the secondary school certificate showing his date of birth as 13th June, 1977, making him above 18 at the time of the incident. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was sustainable on the sole testimony of the injured eyewitness, as it was credible and reliable, and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 304 Part II/34 IPC - Conviction based on sole testimony of injured eyewitness - The appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part II/34 IPC for causing death by assault with dandas. The sole testimony of PW3, an injured eyewitness, was found credible and reliable, corroborated by medical evidence and FIR. The court held that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of an injured witness if it is trustworthy and unimpeachable. (Paras 14-17) B) Juvenile Justice - Determination of juvenility - Section 2(k) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - The appellant claimed juvenility based on a birth certificate obtained in 2010, but the High Court relied on his secondary school certificate showing date of birth as 13th June, 1977, making him above 18 on the date of incident (18th June, 1995). The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings on age. (Paras 2, 11, 18) C) Evidence Law - Injured eyewitness - Credibility - The testimony of PW3, an injured eyewitness, was consistent with the FIR and medical evidence. The court emphasized that the presence of an injured witness at the scene lends credence to their testimony, and minor discrepancies do not discredit it. (Paras 14-17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part II/34 IPC based on the sole testimony of an injured eyewitness is sustainable, and whether the appellant was a juvenile on the date of the incident.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 304 Part II/34 IPC.
Law Points
- Section 304 Part II IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Juvenile Justice Act 2000
- Section 2(k) Juvenile Justice Act 2000
- Section 391 CrPC
- Injured eyewitness testimony
- Sole testimony conviction
