JODHRAJ SINGH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 850 · Decided: 27-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
JODHRAJ SINGH 
v. 
ST A TE OF RAJASTHAN 
APRIL 27, 2007 
(S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] 
Penal Code. 1860-ss.302 and 34-Murder-FIR naming the accused 
and stating the specific role played by each accused-Motive proved -
C Ultimate cause of death has found to be assault by co-accused-Four of the 
Prosecution witnesses turned hostile-Version of the first informant 
consistent-Conviction by courts below-On appeal, held: Accused was rightly 
convicted by the reason of his common intention for commission of crime-
Even if some witnesses turned hostile, conviction can be based even on 
testimony of single witness-In the fact situation of a case, it is permissible 
D for a court to rely on one part of the deposition of hostile witness-Evidence-
Hostile witness-Evidentiary value-Criminal Law-Common intention. 
Appellant-accused was tried for having caused death of one person PW-
17 (informant) had seen the accused along with other co-accused assaulting 
E the deceased. The movie for assault was a dispute between the deceased and 
one of the co-accused. PW-17 lodged FIR specifically naming the accused and 
also categorically stating about the specific role played by each accused. 
Appellant-accused was absconding. Hence, his case was separated from that 
of the other accused. In the fact trial (relating to other accused) two witnesses 
F turned hostile. In the second trial (relating to the appellant-accused) apart 
from the two hostile witnesses two more witnesses turned hostile. Evidence 
of the first informant was consistent in both the trials. Trial Court as well as 
High Court convicted the accused u/s 302 IPC. Hence the present appeal. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The Trial Judge as also the High Court relied upon the 
testimonies of the first informant (PW-17). There is no reason to differ 
therewith. He not only named the appellant in the First Informaniion Report 
but also in his deposition categorically stated about the role played by each of 
H the accused person. [Paras 7 and 6] [853-F, E[ 
850 
JODHRAJ SINGH v. ST A TE OF RAJAS THAN 
851 
1.2. Sufficient materials have been brought on records to establish that A 
the appellant participated in commission of the offence. All the accuse..:! 
persons came together in a tempo. They were armed with various weapons. 
They assaulted the deceased. Courts below found existence of a motive for 
commission of the offence. They left the place of occurrence together. It may 
be that the ultimate cause of death was found to be an assault by stone on the 
head of the deceased which is said to be the act of a co-accused, but oniy by B 
reason thereof existence of the common intention on the part of the appellant 
cannot be said to be absent. The appellant shared common intention with the 
other accused in committing the crime. [Paras 15 and 19) (855-E; 857-C-DI 
Vatjayanti v. State of Maharashtra, 12005] 13 SCC 134; Triloki Nath C 
and Ors. v. State of U.P., (2005) 13 SCC 323 and Pardeep Kumar v. Union 
Administration, Chandigarh, (2006) IO SCC 608, relied on. 
Mithu Singh v. State of Punjab, (2001) 4 SCC 193, distinguished. 
2.1. The fact that in the case of the appellant herein two more prosecution D 
witnesses turned hostile, would not materially alter the prosecution case, as 
a conviction can even be based on the testimony of a single witness. The courts 
furthermore are entitled to rely upon a part of the testimony of a witness who 
has been permitted to be cross-examined by the prosecution. 
[Para ll] 1854-E) E 
2.2. While recording a judgment of a conviction, the court may consider 
a part of the deposition of a witness who had been permitted to be cross-
examined by prosecution having regard to the fact situation obtaining in the 
said case. How the evidence adduced before it shall be appreciated by the court, 
would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. [Para 13) 
F 
2.3. It is trite that only because a witness, for one reason or the other, 
has, to some extent, resiled from his earlier statement by itself may not be 
sufficient to discard the prosecution case in the entirety. The courts even in 
such a situation are not powerless. Keeping in view the materials available 
on record, it is permissible for a court of law to rely upon a part of the G 
testimony of the witness who has been declared hostile. [Para 14) (855-C-D] 
State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra and Anr., [1996] 10 SCC 360 and 
Gurpreet Singh v. State of Harya

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