STATE OF U.P. versus PARAS NATH SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 313 · Decided: 15-01-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
PARAS NATH SINGH & ORS. 
January 15, 1973 
313 
[A. ALAGIRISWAMI, I. D. DUA AND C~ A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.J 
Crirninal k;Jw-Practice and procedure-Eye witn··esses f.elativeS' of 
deceased-No intrinsic infirmity in 
their 
evidence----.Jf 
corroboration. 
necessary for sustaining 
conviction-Sentence 
of 
life 
imprisonment 
instead of death-Circumstances justifying. 
The six respondents (accused) were convicted by the 
trial Olurt 
for offences Ulllder s. 302/149, I.P.C. Four of them were 
sentenced 
to death and two to Imprisonment for life on the grounds that one 
was a 'budding lawyer' and the other was IS years old. The son and 
daughter of .the dec,eased were examined as eye witnesses to .the .occur-
rence. Four penons, who were cited as eye-witnesses by the prosecu-
Uon, were giv~ up, because, the counsel for prosecution 
represented 
that he had reason to believe that they would not speak the tmth. 
They were neither examined by the trial court under s. 540, Cr.P. C., 
nor as defence witnesses. The trial court scrutinised 
carefully 
and 
properly evaluated the evidence of the son and daughter, and as the 
son was 12 or 13 years old, applied the correct principles gover.ning 
the appreciation of the evidence of a child witness and accepted th.eir 
evidence as true. 
The Hipt Court on appeal, examined the 4 witnesses 
given up by the prosecution, as court witnesses. 
It devoted a 
major 
part of its judgment to the consid,eration of the 
additional 
evideroce 
recorded by it. Feeling whotly unimpres;ed by that evidence, the High 
Court endors.ed the view of the plrosecution that these witnesses 
were 
given up as they were not prepared to speak the truth and even issued 
notice und,er s. 479A, Cr. P. C. to one of them to show cause why he 
should 1not be prosecuted for perjury. The High Court disagreed with 
the main arguments urged on behalf of the accused for 
discrediting 
the testimony of the son and daughter. Bui, th.e High Court acquitted 
the accused on the view that the SOI> and daughter, being closely related 
to the deceased and being in a sense, chance witnesses, their evideince 
without corroboration did not prove the guilt of the accused beyond 
reasonable doubt. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD: (!) The judgment of the High Court reversing the judgment 
of the trial court and acquitting the accused caused grave miscarriage 
of justice. 
[32SB-C] 
Once the two eye witinesses were h.eld to be trustworthy witnesses 
there was no cogent reason for not acting upon their evidencle. The 
fact that the other persons who were present at the 
spot and 
had 
w?tnesse~ the ~urrence have, without 11ny good reason and, perhaps 
with oblique motive, chose.n ~t t? state the truth in court and thereby 
obs!ructcd the course of 1ushce, is a sound reason for accepting 
the 
testimony of the son and daughter. To decline to act upon their testi-
mony merely because of the absence of other witnesses to corroborate 
them in court, is to defeat the cause of justice in this case. 
It was 
wholly unreasonable for the High Court to dub them as chance 
wit-
:nesses, as there i! no material on record to support such an observation. 
and the observation runs counter to the High Court's own 
line 
of 
314 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1973) 3 S.C.R. 
reasoning earlier. There is thus absolutely no justification for the view 
that theit testimony leaves any scope for reasonable doubt ebout 
the 
guilt of the accused. It could not be considered that because of their 
relationship to thi: deceased, they would spare the real assailants 
"""1 
ffilaely implicate the accused, and in the circumstances of the 
case, 
there is no scope for such a hypothesis. 
There is no general 
rule 
that the .evidence of the relations of the deceased must be corroborated 
for securing the conviction of the offender. 
Each case is to be consi-
dered on its own facts. 
[325F-326Cj 
bl the present case, there is an instr'insic ring of truth in the evi-
dence of the two eye witnesses. 
The straight forward nature of their 
deposition and the fact that they were undoubtedly in. a 
position 
t<> 
identify the assailants coupled with the recovery of blood-stained earth 
from the place of occurrence ]eave no reasonable doubt about the guilt 
of the accused. [326C-D] 
(2) No leniency should have been show.n to the 'budding lawyer', 
because, he, as a result of his education and profession should 
have 
exercised a re

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