LexKARTIK MALHAR versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
KARTIK MALHAR v. STATE OF BIHAR NOVEMBER 15, 1995 [KULDIP SINGH AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] Evidence Act, 1872-Section 134-Conviction on basis of statement of a single witness-Whether sustainabl~Held, yes, provided evidence is reli- able, unshaken and consistent with case of prosecution-Three eye wit- nesses-Two witnesses turned hostile-Conviction on basis remaining witness-Sustainable. Section 3-/nterested witness-Witness must have direct interest in having the accused convicted for some animus or reason-Close relative who is a natural witness-Not an interested witness. Indian Penal Code, 186(}-Section 302-Conviction-Legality of-Ap- preciation of evidenc~Widow of deceased had seen whole of incident-She accompanied inf onnant and his wife to police station-Infonnant and his wife tumed hostil~Statement of widow fully corroborated-Conviction recorded on basis of her statement--Legally sustainable. A B c D E The appellant was convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment as the Sessions Judge as also the High Court were of the view that the evidence of PW2, the widow of the deceased clearly estab- lished that the appellant had given 'Pharsa' blows to the deceased on his head and scapular region which resulted in his death at the spot. The Trial F Court and the High Court, on a scrutiny of the evidence recorded, came to the conclusion that the informant and his wife, closely related to all the three accused, including the appellant in order to protect them, they had deliberately turned hostile. In this process, two of the accused were ac· quitted. This appeal had been filed against the judgment of conviction G recorded by the two Courts below. The appellant contended that in the particular facts and circumstan· ces of the case, it was not open to the Sessions Judge or the High Court to rely upon the statement of the widow of the deceased so as to convict the appellant for the offence u/s 302 IPC and that since two of the eye H 239 240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A witnesses had turned hostile, it would not be safe to maintain. the convic- tion on the statement of PW2 alone as she was the widow of the deceased and was, consequently, a highly interested witness. Dismissing the appeal, this Court B HELD : 1.1. Conviction can be recorded on the basis of the statement of single eye witness provided his credibility is not shaken by any adverse circumstances 3ppearing on the record against him and the Court, at the same time, is convinced that he is a truthful witness. The Court will not then insist on corroboration by any other witness particularly as the C incident might have occured at a time or place when there was no pos- sibility of any other eye witness being present. Indeed, the Courts insist on the quality and not on the quantity of evidence. [245-A-B] Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR (1957) SC 614; Ramratan and Ors v. State of Rajasthan, A.l.R. (1962) SC 424; Guli Chand and Others D v. State of Rajasthan, A.l.R. (1974) S.C. 276; Radii v. State of Rajasthan, A.LR. (1976) S.C. 560; Vanula Bhushan @ Vahuna Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. (1989) S.C. 236 and Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P., A.LR. (1994) S.C. 1251, relied on. E F 1.2. The instant case did not strictly fall within the category of those cases where only one witness is present and the case of the prosecution is sought to be proved by the statement of that witness alone. Here, three of the witnesses were produced but two of them turned hostile leaving the third alone and, therefore, on the established principle, if the remaining eye witness is found to be trustworthy, it becomes the duty of the Court to convict the accused. [247-G-H; 248-A] 1.3. A close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. The term 'interested' postulates that the witness must have some direct interest in having the accused somehow or other G convicted for some animus or for some other reason. The ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently, being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, had no substance. (247-C-D; 249-C] Mst. Dalbir Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR (1977) SC 472; Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab [1954) SCR 143; Guli Chand & Ors. v. State of H Rajasthan, AIR (1974) SC 276; Masatti v: State of U.P., [1964)- 8 SCR 133 = KARTIKMALHARv. STATE[S.SAGHIRAHMAD,J.] 241 AIR (1965) SC 202 and State of Pun
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.