LexJOSEPH versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
JOSEPH A STATE OF KERALA DECEMBER 3, 2002 [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] B Penal Code, 1860: Ss. 34, 302, 307 & 341: Murder-Acquittal of one of the accused by Trial Court-High Court convicting that accused-Correctness of-Held, since Trial Court had given C cogent reasons while acquitting the accused, High Court ought not to have interfered with the same merely because another opinion is possibl~. Evidence Act, 1872; Section 134: Testimony of Sole eye-witness-Reliance thereupon-Held, evidence of D such witness could be accepted if it corroborates with the evidence of other witnesses/other evidence on record-Conviction could be recorded on the evidence of solitary eye witness provided such evidence is cogen.t, reliable and inspires confidence. According to the prosecution, PWl and the deceased were proceeding E to their houses when they were wrongfully restrained by three accused persons resulting in some altercations. Accused stabbed the deceased on the chest and PWl on the neck. PWs.2 to 4 had taken both the injured to the hospital where the deceased succumbed to his injuries. Police recorded statement of the injured witness, PWl, in the hospital. The case of the F prosecution rested solely on the evidence of PWl. Trial Court found the charges against the accused including appellant were not established and acquitted them. On appeal by the State, High Court convicted one of the accused (appellant) as evidence against him was clear and convincing and confirmed the acquittal of other two accused. Hence this appeal by the convicted accused. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. When there is a sole witness to the incident his evidence has to be accepted with an amount of caution and after testing it on the touchstone of the evidence tendered by other witnesses or evidence as recorded. G 439 (446-D-E] H 440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A 1.2. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact and, therefore, it is permissible for a Court to record and sustain a conviction on the evidence of a solitary eye witness. But, at the same time, such a course can be adopted only if the evidence tendered by such witness is cogent, reliable B and in tune with probabilities and inspires implicit confidence. By this standard, when prosecution case rests mainly on the sole testimony of an eye- witness, it should be wholly reliable. Even though such witness is an injured witness and his presence may not be seriously doubted, when his evidence is in conflict with other evidence, the view taken by the trial Court that it would be unsafe to convict the accused on his sole testimony cannot be stated to be C unreasonable. High Court ought not to have interfered with the same merely because an;:>ther opinion is possible and not that the finding concluded by the trial Court was impossible. [446-H; 447-A-C] D CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURlSDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 620 of 1995. From the Judgment and Order dated 2.3.1995 of the Kerala High Court in Cr!. A. No. 324of1991. E.M.S. Anam, for the Appellants. E Ramesh Babu M.R., Sushil K. Terkriwal and K.R. Sasiprabhu, for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAJEND~~.A BABU, J. The appellant and two others were prosecuted F for offences under Sections 341, 307 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC on the allegation_ that on 9. 7 .1989 near the bunk shop of one Kolasseri Pappachan at Konipadu junction, they restrained from moving on the road, murdered Simon and caused hurt to Benny [PW. I] and ran away. The Trial Court found that the charges against the appellant and the other accused were not G established and acquitted them. The State preferred an appeal in the High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of acquittal and recorded the conviction against the appellant but did not disturb the order of acquittal made by the Trial Court with respect to the other two accused. H The prosecution case as unfolded in the Trial Court is that the injured .. JOSEPH v. STATE OF KERALA [S. RA.IENDRA BABU . .I.] 441 witness, Benny [PW. I] an.d the deceased Simon were proceeding to their A houses from west to east along Konipadu-Moonnilavu Road after purchasing beedi from the shop of one Mathachan at Konipadu junction. All the three accused who were moving ahead from Konipadu junctio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.