STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE versus LALY @ MANIKANDAN & ANOTHER ETC

Citation: [2022] 15 S.C.R. 633 · Decided: 14-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
633
STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
v.
LALY @ MANIKANDAN & ANOTHER ETC.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1750-1751 of 2022)
OCTOBER 14, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Penal Code – ss. 302 & 34 – Conviction on the basis of the
deposition of the sole eye witness – The respondents-three accused
were tried for having committed the murder of victim-deceased –
The respondents were held guilty of the offences u/s 302 r/w. 34 of
IPC by the trial Court – However, the High Court did not find the
testimony of PW1 credible and acquitted the accused – On appeal,
held: PW1 was the eye witness to the occurrence at both places
i.e. the first part was at the time when the victim, PW1 and one
another were travelling in the car, where A1 caused injury on the
right shoulder of the victim and thereafter is the second part, when
victim was trying to run away and reached a shed and all three
accused entered shed and caused injuries to the victim-deceased –
PW1 was fully cross-examined on behalf of the accused in which
he stood by what he has stated and fully supported the case of the
prosecution – No reasons to disbelieve and/or doubt the credibility
of PW1 – Merely because the original complainant is not examined
cannot be a ground to discard the deposition of PW1 – As per settled
position of law, there can be a conviction on the basis of the
deposition of the sole eye witness, if the said witness is found to be
trustworthy and/or reliable – Recovery of the weapon used in the
commission of the offence is not a sine qua non to convict the accused
– If there is a direct evidence in the form of eye witness, even in the
absence of recovery of weapon, the accused can be convicted –
Similarly, even in the case of some contradictions with respect to
timing of lodging the FIR/complaint cannot be a ground to acquit
the accused when the prosecution case is based upon the deposition
of eye witness – Therefore, the judgment passed by the High Court
acquitting the accused is unsustainable and is set aside.
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 633
633
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
634
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. On perusal of the deposition of PW1, it can be
seen that PW1 is the eye witness to the occurrence at both
places. When first, the accused attacked while the deceased was
travelling in the car, PW1 was present in the car. At that time, the
accused dashed the car and broken the wind screen and A1 caused
injury on the right shoulder of the deceased. That thereafter the
deceased tried to run away and he reached the shed and at that
time all the accused chased the deceased, went into the shed,
caused injuries on the deceased and then came out of the shed
and ran away. PW1 has categorically stated that he had seen all
the three accused entering the shed and thereafter they came
out and the deceased was lying with the injuries and he was found
dead. PW1 has been fully cross-examined on behalf of the accused.
However, even after thorough cross-examination, PW1 stood by
what he has stated and has fully supported the case of the
prosecution. There are no reasons to disbelieve and/or doubt
the credibility of PW1. [Para 6][640-D-G]
2. The submission on behalf of the accused that as the
original informant has not been examined and that the other
independent witnesses have not been examined and that the
recovery of the weapon has not been proved and that there is a
serious doubt about the timing and place of the incident, the
accused are to be acquitted cannot be accepted. Merely because
the original complainant is not examined cannot be a ground to
discard the deposition of PW1. As observed hereinabove, PW1
is the eye witness to the occurrence at both the places. Similarly,
assuming that the recovery of the weapon used is not established
or proved also cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when
there is a direct evidence of the eye witness. Recovery of the
weapon used in the commission of the offence is not a sine qua
non to convict the accused. If there is direct evidence in the form
of eye witness, even in the absence of recovery of weapon, the
accused can be convicted. Similarly, even in the case of some
contradictions with respect to timing of lodging the FIR/complaint
cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when the prosecution
case is based upon the deposition of eye witness. As observed,
PW1 is an eye witness. He has fully supported the case of the
prosecution. As per settled position of law, there can be a

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