CHITTAR LAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 633 · Decided: 21-07-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

CHilTARLAL 
A 
ST A TE OF RAJAS THAN 
JULY 21, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASA Y AT, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Murder-(unv!ction by courts 
be/ow-Based on testimony of sole eyewitness-Other two witnesses having 
turned hos'!f/e-Justification of-Held: conviction justified as testimony of C 
the eyewitness was credible. 
Criminal Trial: 
Non-mention of name of eyewitness in FIR-Effect ~!--Held, mere non-
mention of the name does not render prosecution case fragile. 
Evidence of sole eye-witness-Reliability on-Held, if the testimony of 
sole witness is found to be reliable, there is no legal impediment to convict the 
accused-It is the quality and not quantity of evidence which is necessary for 
proving or disproving a fact-Evidence Act, 1872--Section 134. 
The appellant-accused was charged for having killed a person. The 
incident was witnessed by three eye witnesses. FIR was lodged by the son 
of the deceased. During trial two of the eye witnesses turned hostile and 
the trial court relying on the evidence of one eye witness convicted the 
appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC. High Court confirmed the 
conviction. 
In appeal to this Court appellant contended that evidence of the eye-
witness could not have been relied upon as his name did not find place in the 
FIR; that his evidence was not cogent and credible; that his presence at the 
spot ofoccurrence was doubtful as at the time of incident he was supposed to 
D 
E 
F 
be in the examination hall; and that conviction could not have been based on G 
the testimony of the sole eye-witness. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:J. Evidence of the person whose name did not figure in the FIR 
633 
H 
634 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A as witness does not perforce become suspect. There can be no hard and fast 
rule that the names of all witnesses more particularly eye-witnesses should 
be indicated in the FIR. Mere non-mention of the name ofan eye-witness does 
not render prosecution version fragile. In the present case, the information 
was not lodged by an eye-witness. Mental condition of a person whose father 
B has lost life inevitably gets disturbed. Explanation offered by witnesses for 
non-mention of PW's name is plausible. The statement of the eye-witness was 
recorded on the same date of incident, immediately after the investigation 
process was set into motion. 1636-E-FJ 
2. It cannot be said that conviction should not have been made on the 
C basis of a single witness's testimony. The legislative recognition of the fact 
that no particular number of witnesses can be insisted upon is amply reflected 
in Section 134 ofEvidence Act, 1872. Administration of justice can be affected 
and hampered if number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. It is not seldom 
that a crime has been committed in the presence of one witness, leaving aside 
those cases which are not of unknown occurrence where determination of 
D guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If plurality of witnesses 
would have been the legislative intent, cases where the testimony of a single 
witness only could be available, in number of crimes offender would have gone 
unpunished. It is the quality of evidence of the single witness whose testimony 
has to be tested on the touchstone of credibility and reliability. If the testimony 
E is found to be reliable, there is no legal impediment to convict the accused on 
such proof. It is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary 
for proving or disproving a fact. 1636-F-H; 637-A-BI 
F 
G 
Mohamed Guga/ Esa Mamasan Ger. Ala/ah v. The King. AIR (1946) 
PC 3, referred to. 
Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras, AIR (1957) SC 614; Guli 
Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1974) SC 276; Yahu/a Bhushan 
alias Vehuna Krishnan v. State of MP., AIR (1989) SC 236; Jagdish Prasad 
and Ors, v. State of MP., AIR (1994) SC 1251 and Karlik Malhar v. State of 
Bihar, 1199611 SCC 614, referred to. 
3. Evidence of PW3 comes unscathed on the acid test of credibility 
and reliability and, therefore, there can be no justification in doubting his 
testimony. Factual aspect regarding his alleged appearance at examination 
has been elaborately analysed by both the trial Court and the High Court and 
it has been found that the eye-witness did not appear at the examination and 
H his presence at the spot of occurrence has been established. 1637-D-EI 
CHITTARLALv. STATEOFRAJASTHAN [PASAYAT.J.] 
635 
CRIMIN

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.