STATE OF RAJAS THAN versus OM PRAKASH

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 1000 · Decided: 13-06-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
A 
ST A TE OF RAJAS THAN 
-" \-: 
v. 
r 
~ 
OM PRAKASH 
t 
JUNE 13, 2007 
I'-
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Penal Code, I 860-s. 302-Conviction under, on basis of evidence of 
' 
prosecution witnesses-Set aside by High Court since the conviction could 
c not be recorded on the basis of evidence of solitary witness, that too when 
~ 
he was related to the deceased-Held: Evidence of witness was credible-
Certain improvements in the version of the witness by the accused is not of 
'--
consequence-Also the conduct of the accused was highly suspicious-Thus, 
the order of High Court indefensible and is set aside. 
D 
N lodged FIR that he heard that respondent-OP _killed his wife due to 
quarrel. Investigation was carried out. Accused was arrested and the blood 
stained knife and clothes were recovered. Prosecution witnesses were 
examined. Trial Court relying on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses 
convicted and sentenced the accused under section 302 IPC. High Court set 
aside the acquittal since the conviction could not be recorded on the basis of 
E a solitary witnesses' evidence, that too when he is related to the deceased. 
~ 
Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant-State contended that the evidence of PW-1 clearly established 
the commission of offence by the respondent; that it cannot be said that on 
F 
the basis of solitary witnesses' evidence conviction cannot be recorded and 
also that relatives' evidence needs corroboration; and that the accused did 
;. 
not explain as to what he was doing if he was present in the house after the 
occurrence and why he did not file any report with the police. 
Respondent-accused contended that the corroboration was necessary 
G because of contradictions in the version of PW 1, his conduct in not lodging 
the FIR, improvements made during the evidence and his presence having not 
been established by any acceptable evidence; and that motive was not · 
established. 
~ 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
1000 
ST ATE OF RAJASTHAN v. OM PRAKASH 
1001 
HELD: I. Order of High Court is indefensible and acquittal recorded A 
by High Court is set aside and conviction and sentence by trial court is 
restored. (Para 13111005-E, Fl 
2.1. In the instant case the evidence of PW-1 was not shaken in spite of 
incisive cross examination. High Court seems to have taken exception to the 
credibility of his e\·idence on the ground that he had graphically described B 
his movements with the accused and deceased. It is not clear as to how that 
can be the ground to discard his evidence. He has only described the movements 
during the relevant period of time from one place to another. For that it was 
not necessary to have photogenic memory as the High Court seems to have 
inferred. On the contrary these were mere description of the places which at C 
the relevant time the PW-1 visited in the company of the accused and the 
deceased. (Para 10) (1004-G; 1005-A) 
2.2. Though counsel for the respondent tried to highlight certain 
improvements in the version of the witness it is not of consequence. Irrelevant 
details which do in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be D 
levelled as omissions or contradictions. (Para 11) [1005-B] 
Anil Phukan v. State of Assam (1993) 3 SCC 282, referred to. 
2.3. Though the accused had given the katari blow, the witness did not 
remember whether it was inflicted obliquely or straight. This by itself may E 
not be sufficient to fasten the guilt on the accused, but this is certainly a 
relevant factor. Additionally the conduct of the accused was highly suspicious. 
If he subsequently came to the house after the incident, he has not explained 
as to why he did not lodge any report with the police. That would have been 
his normal conduct, considering the fact that undisputedly the deceased 
breathed her last in the house itself. (Para 12) [1005-C, D, El 
F 
State of Karnataka v. K. Gopalakrishna, [2005) 9 SCC 291, referred 
to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 722 of 
G 
2001. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 18.12.1998 of the High Court 
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Joi:lhpifr in Crl. D.B. Appeal No. 454 of 1993. 
Naveen Kumar Singh and Aruneswar Gupta for the Appellant. 
H 
1002 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 7 S.C.R. · 
A 
Pallav Shishodia. Hemant Shanna and Rambir Singh Yadav for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. I. State of Rajasthan is in appeal ag

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