LI Network
Published on: December 20, 2023 at 15:50 IST
The Supreme Court, emphasized the need for cautious examination of the testimony of a sole eyewitness who also happens to be the complainant, especially when vested interests and longstanding enmity are involved.
The case in question involved the conviction of accused persons under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 302 (punishment for murder).
Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, comprising the bench, endorsed the High Court’s decision to set aside the conviction, stating, “It may not be out of context to mention that the appellant/complainant, a sole eyewitness, happens to be the most interested witness being the father of the deceased and having long enmity with the group to which the accused persons belong; therefore, his testimony was to be examined with great caution.”
The dispute leading to the legal proceedings originated from a rivalry between two groups dating back to 1986, concerning access to a public road. The conflict eventually resulted in the murder of an individual named Ram Kishan. Seeking revenge, the opposing group, including the accused, was implicated in the killing of Kishan Sarup, the victim in this case, leading to the registration of an FIR on November 5, 2000.
While the trial court convicted six out of ten accused individuals, the High Court overturned their conviction. The appellant, dissatisfied with the acquittal, approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court rejected the appellant’s argument that appellate courts typically do not overturn convictions when the trial court has already convicted the accused, especially considering the testimony of an eyewitness.
The Court highlighted that despite being the sole eyewitness, the complainant did not witness the killing of his son, Kishan Sarup. Additionally, the complainant did not provide any explanation as to why he did not attempt to intervene and save his son from the assault.
The Court regarded the statement claiming threats from the accused as a mere assertion, emphasizing that a father witnessing his son’s assault would not remain a mere spectator.
The Court further noted inconsistencies in the appellant’s statement, particularly the omission of the use of a pistol by the accused, which was later recovered by the police.
The cause of death, as per the postmortem report, was firing from close range, yet the appellant did not mention this in his initial statement.
Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused either through circumstantial evidence or the eyewitness’s testimony. It upheld the High Court’s decision to give the benefit of doubt to the accused persons and dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: CHHOTE LAL vs. ROHTASH.,
