LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus RAMLAL DEVAPPA RATHOD AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 357 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V: RAM LAL DEVAPPA RATH OD AND OTHERS (Criminal Appeal No.1957 OF 2008) SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] A . B Penal Code, 1860- ss. 147, 148, 302, 307, 324, 326, C 427, 435, 436, 452 rlw s. 149- Prosecution under- Of 34 accused-Assault by mob, causing death of one person and injuries to others (eye-witnesses)- During trial 9 of the eye- witnesses including injured-eyewitnesses turned hostile as regards the identity of the accused persons - The sole eye- D witness PW-12 supported the prosecution case - Trial court convicted the 8 respondents-accused, while acquitting the rest of the accused - High Court acquitted the respondents- accused disbelieving the testimony of PW-12 - On appeal, held: The testimony of PW-12 was natural and devoid of any E exaggeration and the same is corroborated by the recovery of weapons of offence at the instance of the accused, medical evidence and other material on record - Therefore, her evidence is reliable and trustworthy- Trial court rightly relied on the testimony of the sole eye-witness (PW12)- In view of F the testimony of PW12, out of the 8 accused found guilty by the trial court, conviction of 6 of them is confirmed, holding that prosecution case against them stood completely proved - The other 2 respondents-accused are acquitted giving them benefit of doubt. G Penal Code, 1860 - s. 149 - Common object - Applicability of- In a case of mob violence - Held: Existence 357 H 358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 11 S.C.R. A of common object can be ascertained from the attending facts and circumstances - Where assault is opened by a mob of fairly large number of people and where it is difficult to ascertain as to whether those who had not committed the overt act were guided by the common object, in such situation such B ·persons who are not attributed of having done any specific overt act, were not members of unlawful assembly. Evidence - Sole witness - Reliance on - Held: Conviction can be founded on the testimony of a sole witness C - However, testimony of such witness must be confidence inspiring and beyond suspicion and has to be corroborated by other evidence - Witness. Evidence - Sole witness - Reliance on - In a case of o mob violence - Held: The rule of prudence that in a case of mob violence there should be more than one eye-witness . does not mean that in such case sole-witness cannot be relied on, if it is otherwise reliable. E Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 27 - Recovery of weapons at the instance of the accused - Evidentiary value of - If not supported by testimony of independent panchas - Held: The recoveries need not always be proved through the deposition of the panchas and' can be supported through the testimony F of the investigating officer. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The case of the prosecution is based on the testimony of PW12, the wife of the deceased. The G substantive evidence on record is only through this witness. The law on the point is well settled that a conviction can well be founded upon the testimony of a sole witness. However, the testimony of a sole witness H must be confidence inspiring and beyond suspicion, STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAMLAL DEVAPPA 359 RATHOD leaving no doubt in the mind of the Court. Where there A is a sole witness, his evidence has to be accepted with an amount of caution and after testing it on the touchstone of other material on record. The statement of the sole eye-witness should be reliable, should not leave any doubt in ihe mind of the Court and has to be B corroborated by other evidence produced by the prosecution. [Para 14] [377-0-G] State of Haryana v. lnder Singh (2002) 9 SCC 537; Joseph v. State of Kera/a 2003 (2) SCC 465; Ram C Naresh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 11 SCC 257 - referred to 1.2 The deposition of PW12 shows that while the decJ!ased was being pursued and assaulted, her o attention was focussed in so far as her husband was concerned, which is quite natural. Except referring to the initial blow which was given to one of the witnesses, her testimony concentrates only upon .those who were primarily responsible for having pursued and assaulted E her husband. In her testimony she has concentrated only upon the roles of those accused who were directly responsible for having committed certain overt acts. Out of large body of thirty-four ac
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.