Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, accused Nos.2, 3 and 5, were convicted by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri in C.C.No.957/2009 for offences punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The conviction was confirmed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madhugiri in Crl.A.No.5012/2015. The petitioners challenged these judgments by filing a criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The case arose from an incident of robbery that occurred on 22.06.2009 at about 10.30 p.m. near Madhugiri, where the complainant (PW-1) and his family were waylaid by five persons who robbed them of gold ornaments and cash. The prosecution examined PW-1 as the sole eyewitness, along with other formal witnesses. The trial court convicted the petitioners based primarily on the testimony of PW-1, who claimed to have identified the accused in the moonlight. The appellate court upheld the conviction. The High Court, in revision, examined the evidence and found that PW-1 was an interested witness being the complainant, and his testimony lacked corroboration from independent witnesses. No recovery of stolen articles was effected from the petitioners. The identification by PW-1 was doubtful as the incident occurred at night and the accused were strangers to him. The court held that the conviction based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an interested witness was perverse and unsustainable. Consequently, the revision petition was allowed, the judgments of the lower courts were set aside, and the petitioners were acquitted of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Robbery - Identification of Accused - Testimony of Sole Interested Witness - Conviction under Sections 395 and 397 IPC based solely on the evidence of PW-1, the complainant, who was an interested witness, without any corroboration from independent witnesses or recovery of stolen articles, is unsustainable. The court held that the evidence of an interested witness requires corroboration and in its absence, the conviction cannot be sustained. (Paras 10-15) B) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction - Under Section 397 read with 401 CrPC, the High Court can interfere with findings of fact if the lower courts have acted with material irregularity or perversity. The court held that the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court were perverse as they relied on unreliable identification evidence. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the petitioners/accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 under Sections 395 and 397 IPC is sustainable based on the testimony of a sole interested witness and in the absence of independent witnesses?
Final Decision
The revision petition is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 30.06.2015 in C.C.No.957/2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri and the judgment dated 17.02.2016 in Crl.A.No.5012/2015 passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madhugiri are set aside. The petitioners/accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 are acquitted of the offences under Sections 395 and 397 IPC.
Law Points
- Identification of accused by sole interested witness
- Corroboration of evidence
- Appreciation of evidence in criminal revision
- Section 395 IPC
- Section 397 IPC
