ALIL MOLLAH AND ANR. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 666 · Decided: 18-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
ALIL MOLLAH AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
JULY 18, 1996 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] 
Evidence-Sole eye witness--Evidentimy value of-Conviction can be 
based on the testimony of a single eye witness if he is a wholly reliable wit-
ness-If single eye witness is only partly reliable there should be con-oboration 
C of his testimony before recording conviction-Murder-<:onviction of accused 
based upon the single eye witness who was an employee of deceased-Legality 
of-Evidence suggesting that conduct of single witness was zmnatural-Witness 
maintaining unexplained silence-Making delayed statement to the police and 
relatives of deceased-Not appearing before the Investigating Officer-No cor-
roboration of his evidence from any other independent source-Held, such a 
D witness was not wholly reliable-It was unsafe to rely upon his evidence. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 136. 
Appeal-Power of Supreme Court to re-appreciate evidence-Wit-
ness-Admission made by him in his cross-examination materially detracting 
E from his reliability not at all noticed by the courts below thereby resulting in 
miscaniage of justice-Held, appreciation of his evidence by Courts below 
was not justified. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
F 400 of 1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.4.87 of the Calcutta High 
Court in Cr!. A. No. 353 of 1985. 
M.N. Krishnamani and Mrs. Sarla Chandra for the Appellants. 
G 
Ujjwal Banerjee and H.K. Puri for the Respondents. 
S.A. Syed, for the Complainant. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
H 
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the 
666 
• 
ALILMOLLAl-Iv. STATE 
667 
High Court dated 29th April, 1987 upholding the _judgment of the trial A 
court dated 19th september, 1985 whereby the appellants were convicted 
for an offence under Section 302/34 !PC and sentenced to imprisonment 
for life. 
On 4th February, 1982 at about 5.30 p.m. one Elem Bux Molla, owner 
of a brick kiln at Dhib Dhipa was on his way to Dhib Dhipa Bazar for 
taking tea and snacks when he was accosted by 4-5 persons, including the 
appellants herein. Appellant No. 1 fired upon him with his gun as a result 
of which he fell down. Appellant No. 2 slit the throat of Elem Bux with a 
knife and after raising slogans 'lnquilab zindabad' all the miscreants includ-
ing the appellants fled away. According to the prosecution story PW-3 and 
PW 6, both employees of Elem Bux, witnessed the occurrence. Din 
Mohammad, PW.1, another employee of the deceased heard the sound of 
gun shots coming from the side of Dhib Dhipa Bazar and he ran towards 
B 
c 
that place from the field where he was working. On reaching Harwa-
Lauhati Road he saw some 4-5 persons running away towards the north D 
along Boalghata Road shouting slogans 'lnquilab Zindabad'. At a little 
distance he found his master Elem Bux lying in a pool of blood with his 
throat slit. Some other persons were present at a distance. PW. 3 was also 
seen there and then PW. 1 immediately rushed to Police Station Bangar 
and lodged First Information Report at about 8.30 p.m. In the First 
Information Report he stated that 
11some unknown miscreants
11 had com-
mitted the murder of Elem Bux. On receiving the information, the police 
officer on duty, PW. 12, after registering the formal First Information 
Report took up the investigation in hand. He left for the place of occur-
rence at about 10.00 p.m. On reaching the place of occurrence he found 
E 
F 
the dead body lying on the road. Many people had collected there. He 
seized a number of incriminating articles from the spot including some 
empty cartridges etc. He held inquest on the dead body of Elem Bux and 
sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. On completion of the 
investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants for an offence 
under Sections 302/34 !PC. The trial court, as already noticed, convicted 
them for the offence under Section 302/34 !PC and sentenced them to G 
suffer life imprisonment. The appellants unsuccessfully challenged their 
conviction and sentence before the High Court. 
Both the trial court and the High Court disbelieved PW. 6 Tassirud-
din Molla whom the prosecution had set up as one of the eye witnesses. H 
668 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A Both the courts, however, relied upon the testimony of Altab Molla, PW.3. 
The conviction of the appellants is based upon the testimony of a singl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.