NARENDRASINH KESHUBHAI ZALA versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 746 · Decided: 16-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
746
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 746
746
NARENDRASINH KESHUBHAI ZALA
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT
(Criminal Appeal No. 1179 of 2012)
MARCH 16, 2023
[B. R. GAVAI, VIKRAM NATH AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302/34 – Arms Act, 1959 – ss. 25(1)
A, 27(2) – Acquittal of accused – Appellant was accused of having
committed the murder of the victim-deceased by shooting at him
while he was sitting on a Nala with PW-3 – FIR was lodged and the
charge-sheet was filed and the appellant was put on trial – Trial
Court convicted the appellant on the testimony of the sole eye-witness
(PW-3) and such conviction was upheld by the High Court – On
appeal, held: In the case of a sole eye witness, the witness has to be
reliable, trustworthy, his testimony worthy of credence and the case
proven beyond reasonable doubt and unnatural conduct and
unexplained circumstances can be a ground for disbelieving the
witness – It is not the quantity but the quality of witnesses and
evidence that can either make or break the case of the prosecution
– It is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the testimonies of the
witnesses that it seeks to rely upon are of sterling quality, i.e. fully
trustworthy and absolutely free from any kind of blemish – Further,
it is true that concurrent findings of facts of the Courts below, are
usually, not to be interfered with – However, in the instant case,
testimony of PW-3 was full of blemishes, absolutely uninspiring in
confidence – In absence of any other evidence linking the accused
to the murder of the deceased, testimony of PW-3 discarded –
Appellant acquitted.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It is a settled principle of law that doubt cannot
replace proof. Suspicion, howsoever great it may be, is no
substitute of proof in criminal jurisprudence. Only such evidence
is admissible and acceptable as is permissible in accordance
with law. In the case of a sole eye witness, the witness has to be
reliable, trustworthy, his testimony worthy of credence and the
case proven beyond reasonable doubt. Unnatural conduct and
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
747
unexplained circumstances can be a ground for disbelieving the
witness. [Para 8][750-H; 751-A-B]
2. What makes testimony of PW-3 shaky and the witness
unbelievable is his admission of the Police Headquarters being
in close proximity to the place of occurrence of the incident and
despite knowing that police is always posted at the gate he did
not approach the police. The explanation furnished is only that
he was “much scared”, which prudently is not acceptable, given
that he was a close friend of the Deceased. Further, his credit
stands impeached in the cross-examination part of his testimony.
The witness is an adult, mature and worldly wise. He is aged 24
years and runs a grocery shop. He is not illiterate, yet he chose
to not take any action, even to save the life of his friend. His
explanation that he went home and slept is uninspiring in
confidence for the incident took place in his presence and in close
proximity of habitation, more specifically at a short distance i.e.
just 3-4 minutes of walking distance from the Police Headquarters
where constables are posted around the clock. He left his friend
profusely bleeding on the spot but did not seek any help and
immediately did not report the incident to the family members of
the deceased. [Para 9][752-C-G]
3. This Court on multiple occasions has held that it is not
the quantity but the quality of witnesses and evidence that can
either make or break the case of the prosecution. It is the duty
of the prosecution to prove that the testimonies of the witnesses
that it seeks to rely upon are of sterling quality, i.e. fully
trustworthy and absolutely free from any kind of blemish. [Para
10][752-H; 753-A]
4. In the absence of any other evidence linking the accused
to the murder of the deceased, the testimony of PW-3 discarded,
there is no other direct or circumstantial evidence, ocular or
otherwise, linking the accused be it on the point of motive or the
incident. It is in this backdrop it is found that the Courts below to
have seriously erred. The settled principles of convicting the
accused on circumstantial evidence, enunciated by this Court in
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC
NARENDRASINH KESHUBHAI ZALA v. STATE OF GUJARAT
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
748
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
116, have not been followed by the Courts below. It is true that
concurrent 

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