LexMUNNA @ POORAN YADAV versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 279 ' MUNNA@ POORAN YADAV A II. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 1025 of 2006) NOVEMBER 4, 2008 B [D.K. JAIN AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder - Prosecution of three accused - Sole eye-witness related to the deceased - c Conviction of the appellant-accused uls, 302 and of the co- ; accused u/s. 302134 by trial court - High Court confirming conviction of appellant-accused - Acquittal of co-accused giving them benefit of doubt - On appeal, held: Order of High Court justified - Facts of the case support the prosecution D case - The evidence of the eye-witness is reliable and has ~ been appreciated by courts blow with caution - Hence cannot be discarded his being sole eye-witness and related witness · - Evidence of the eye-witness also cannot be discarded on the principle of Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus - Appellant- accused is not entitled to parity with the co-accused. E Appellant-accused alongwith two other accused (A2 and A3) was prosecuted for having caused death of one person. Prosecution case was that the accused persons --! entered the house of the deceased and took him out. A- F 2 and A-3 caught hold of the hands of the deceased and the appellant-accused fired at him, as a result of which ---\ he died on the spot. PW-4 (father of the deceased) was <. the sole eye-witness to the incident. Trial Court convicted appellant-accused uls 302 IPC, while acquitted him ulss. G 25 and 27 of Arms Act. A-2 and A-3 were convicted uls. 302/34 IPC. High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant accused. However, A-2 and A-3 were acquitted ' giving them benefit of doubt. .. 279 H 280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R. / A ~n appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the evidence of PW4 should not have been relied upon because he was the sole eye-witness, was a related witness and his evidence was not believed in so far as it related to A-2 and A-3; that the appellant has been B falsely implicated; time of death as given by prosecution is incorrect; that the appellant should also have been acquitted by reason of parity with A2 and A-3; and that as the shock had not been caused by the appellant, the offence would be minor and not u/s. 302 IPC. c Dismissing the appeal, the Court ' , HELD: 1.1 This court can and may convict relying on ' the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable and that there was no legal impediment in D convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. In the instant case, not only was the evidence of PW-4 acceptable but it was also corroborated by his immediate disclosure to P.W.5 and P.W.8. It was, therefore, rightly accepted and acted upon. [Para 18] [291-G-H; 292- E A] Kunju l/ias Balachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu, [2008) 2 SCC 151 and Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR (1957) SC 614, relied on. ..._ F 1.2. True, it is that P.W.4 is a relation witness and as such requires a closer scrutiny keeping that factor in mind. The High Court was quite alive to the fact that it was the evidence of a near relation and therefore court had ( to use caution. Such caution was exercised by the High G Court while appreciating the evidence of PW4 and the High Court was right in accepting his evidence. The court should not only exercise the caution while appreciating such evidence of relation witness but also it should be : seen from the judgment. The courts below have not only H exercised caution but it is also apparent from the MUNNA@POORAN YADAV v. STATE OF MADHYA 281 PRADESH judgments that such caution is in fact exercised. [Para 11] A [287-F-H; 288-A] 2. It cannot be said that the death must have occurred much more than 24 hours earlier to the hour of the post mortem i.e. near about 36 hours. The post B mortem clearly suggests that the death must have -4 occurred between 24 hours to 36 hours. Therefore, if the death is 24 hours prior to the post mortem with a difference of about 2-3 hours as admitted by the doctor in his cross examination then it is obvious that the death c might have occurred in the morning of 01.02.1997 which completely matches the testimony of P.W.4. It is nowhere tried to be brought out in the cross-examination that the death had not occurred 24 hours prior to the post mortem examination or that it had occurred much before that i.e. D ~ > about 36 hours. No suggestion was put to t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.