MAHENDRA SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2022] 6 S.C.R. 737 · Decided: 03-06-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
737
MAHENDRA SINGH AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF M.P.
(Criminal Appeal No.764 of 2021)
JUNE 03, 2022
[B. R. GAVAI AND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 r/w s.149, and s.148 – Murder –
Conviction of accused-appellants on basis of sole testimony of PW6
– High Court found PW6 to be in the category of a witness who was
“neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable”, and upheld
conviction seeking corroboration from post-mortem report –
Conviction of appellants – Challenged, on ground that PW6 fell in
the category of a “wholly unreliable” witness – Held: From evidence
of PW3 and PW4 which was fully corroborated by evidence of DW3
and DW4, it was clear that PW6 could not have witnessed the incident
– Evidence of PW6 would fall in the category of “wholly unreliable”
witness – As such, no conviction could be based solely on his
testimony – Corroboration sought by High Court from the medical
evidence was not justified – Medical evidence could only establish
that the death was homicidal – However, it could not have been
used to corroborate the version of PW6 that he had witnessed the
incident – Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable
doubt and as such, accused-appellants entitled to be given the
benefit of doubt – Appellants accordingly acquitted.
Criminal Trial – Witnesses – Categories of witnesses – Held:
Witnesses are of three types, viz., (a) wholly reliable; (b) wholly
unreliable; and (c) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable –
When the witness is “wholly reliable”, the Court should not have
any difficulty inasmuch as conviction or acquittal can be based on
the testimony of such single witness – Equally, if the Court finds
that the witness is “wholly unreliable”, there would be no difficulty
inasmuch as neither conviction nor acquittal can be based on the
testimony of such witness – It is only in the third category of witnesses
that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for
corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct
or circumstantial.
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 737
737
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
738
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
Criminal Trial – Motive – Only because motive is established,
the conviction cannot be sustained.
Criminal Trial – Witness – Defence witness vis-a-vis
prosecution witness – Held: Same treatment is required to be given
to the defence witness(es) as is to be given to the prosecution
witness(es).
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1.1. In its celebrated judgment in the case of Vadivelu
Thevar, the Supreme Court has found  that witnesses are of three
types, viz., (a) wholly reliable; (b) wholly unreliable; and (c) neither
wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. When the witness is “wholly
reliable”, the Court should not have any difficulty inasmuch as
conviction or acquittal could be based on the testimony of such
single witness. Equally, if the Court finds that the witness is
“wholly unreliable”, there would be no difficulty inasmuch as
neither conviction nor acquittal can be based on the testimony of
such witness. It is only in the third category of witnesses that the
Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in
material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial.
[Para 13][744-B-C]
2.1. The High Court found the testimony of PW6 to be in
the third category and upheld the conviction seeking
corroboration from the Post-Mortem Report conducted by PW2.
[Para 14][744-D]
2.2. However, it could clearly be seen from the testimony
of PW3 and PW4, without even referring to the testimony of DW3
and DW4, that it was DW3 who had informed PW6 about the dead-
body of the deceased lying on route. The evidence of PW3 and
PW4 is fully corroborated by the evidence of DW3 and DW4. It is
a settled law that same treatment is required to be given to   the
defence witness(es) as is to be given to the prosecution
witness(es). From the evidence of these witnesses, it is amply
clear that PW6 could not have witnessed the incident. [Paras 17,
18, 20 and 21][745-D-E, G-H]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
739
2.3. The evidence of PW6 would fall in the category of
“wholly unreliable” witness. As such, no conviction could be
based solely on his testimony. The corroboration sought by the
High Court from the medical evidence was not justified. The
medical evidence could only establish that the death was
homicidal. However, it could not have been used to corroborate
the version of PW6 that he has witnessed the incident. [Para
22][746-A-B]
2.4. Insofar as

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