NAMDEO versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 939 · Decided: 13-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-) 
NAMDEO 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
MARCH 13, 2007 
[C.K. THAKKERAND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
B 
Indian Penal Code,1860: 
Section 302-Conviction under-Based on testimony of solitary 
witness-Held, quality of evidence and not quantity of evidence which is C 
material-Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. 
Deceased and the accused, living nearby, possessed she goats, sheep and 
she buffalos but relations between the deceased and the accused were strained. 
The reason was the belief entertained by the accused who harboured a D 
suspicion that she goats and sheep belonged to him died due to some disease 
and the deceased and his friends were responsible for the death of those 
- r 
animals as deceased had played a witch craft. This resulted in accused abusing 
the deceased and administering threat to kill. Son of the deceased, however 
requested village people to settle the dispute between his father and the 
accused. Accordingly, some responsible persons intervened, called both of them E 
and advised not to quarrel, however, on the fateful night at about 2-3 AM 
accused assaulted the deceased with an axe while he was asleep in his 
courtyard. On hearing the shouts of his father, the complainant came out and 
saw the appellant inflicting axe blow on the head of his father. The accused 
fled away with the axe and disappeared in the darkness and could not be caught. F 
• ~ 
Another neighbour also came out on hearing the shout but he also could not 
catch the accused. The axe was subsequently recovered at the instance of the 
accused. On the basis of the above evidence, the trial Court held that it was 
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was accused and accused alone who 
had caused injuries to the deceased which resulted in his death. The accused 
was, therefore, convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC G 
and was awarded imprisonment for life. The appeal filed by the accused before 
i. 
the High Court was dismissed. Hence, the appeal. 
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the entire case of the 
939 
H 
940 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 3 S.C.R. 
A prosecution is based on solitary testimony of eye witness who is son of the 
deceased. He is thus an 'interested' witness. In absence of any corroboration, 
it would not be safe to place implicit reliance on his testimony who could not 
have seen the assailant in the dark night. It was further contended that though 
several persons had come at the place of offence, none was examined except 
one who was also not an eye witness. It was submitted that oral dying 
B declaration said to have been made by the deceased either before one Kor Dr. 
S cannot be relied upon in the light of the fact that the injured was in critical 
condition and died within a short time. It was finally submitted that even ifthe 
case of the prosecution is believed, only a single blow was given by the accused 
and the case would not be covered under Section 302 JPC but would fall under 
C Section 304, Part II IPC and the order of conviction and sentence requires to 
be modified. 
On behalf of the State it was contended that both the Courts considered 
the evidence in its proper perspective and no fault can be found when they 
held the accused guilty. Regarding nature of offence, it was submitted that an 
D axe blow was administered on the vital part of the body i.e. head which resulted 
in death of the deceased which was rightly held to be a case of an offence of 
murder. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD 1.1. It is the quality of evidence and not quantity of evidence which 
is material. Quantity of evidence can never be considered to be a test for 
deciding a criminal trial and the emphasis of Courts is always on quality of 
evidence. [Para 14) [946-F) 
1.2. Indian legal system does not insist on plurality of witnesses. Neither 
F the Legislature nor the judiciary mandates that there must be particular 
number of witnesses to record an order of conviction against the accused. 
Our legal system has always laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of 
evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, 
therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary 
G witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite 
of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of 
f 
evidence. The bald contention that no conviction can be recorded in case of a 

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