LexSUNIL KUMAR versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SUNIL KUMAR A v. THE ST A TE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI OCTOBER 15, '2003 B [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302 and 34-Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Section 134-Murder-Conviction based on testimony of sole eye- witness-Validity of-Held, is valid if it is wholly reliable and not doubtful-On facts, the testimony is wholly reliable and truthful-Conviction C and sentence upheld-Section 27-Arms Act, 1959. The 'deceased was on visiting terms with an eunuch who lived nearby. On his father's advise, the deceased stopped going to the eunuch and this annoyed the eunuch. Appellant No. 2, who has also D been visiting the eunuch, had threatened the deceased to resume his relationship with the eunuch and wanted to take the deceased along with him. However, on the advise of his brother PWS, the deceased did not accompany the appellant. Next day, PWS found the deceased in the house of the eunuch. The deceased was engaged in some arguments E with the appellants. When PWS asked his deceased brother to return home, the eunuch told PWS that he would be sent back soon. When PW5 started coming back towards his house, he heard the V<?ice of the deceased and saw the deceased running from the house of the eunuch being chased by the appellants. Appellant No. 1 caught hold of the deceased and appellant No. 2 inflicted knife blows on.the deceased. On F raising the alarm by PW5, PW3 and some other persons reached the spot. Both the appellants ran away. PW3 and PW5 took the deceased to the hospital where he was declared to have been brought dead. P.W. 3 later turned hostile. The trial court held both the appellants guilty of offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 IPC and G sentenced them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000 with default stipulation. Appellant No. 2 was further found guilty of offence punishable under section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and was sentenced to undergo RI for three years and a fine of Rs. 1000 with default stipulation. The High Court dismissed the appeals of the appellants. H 767 768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A ·In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that conviction of the appellants based on the sole eye witness PW5 is not wholly reliable; and that lot of improvements were made to introduce the element of enmity of the appellants with the deceased. B Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD : 1.1. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. But, if there are doubts about the testimony, the courts will insist for corroboration. It is for the Court to act upon the testimony of witnesses. It is not the number, the C quantity, but the quality that is material. The time honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of section 134 of the Indian Evidence A~t, 1872. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trus~worthy, or otherwise. [773-C-D] D Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras, AIR (1957) SC 614; Jagdish Prasad & Ors. v. State of MP., AIR (1994) SC 1251, relied on. 1.2. Evidence of PW5 has been analysed with great care and E caution by the Trial Court and the High Court. Tht: so-called improvements do not, in any way, introduce a new facet of the case. Every omission is not a contradiction. Minor details, which are not indicated in the first information report, are later on elaborated in court. This do not justify a criticism that the case originally presented F has been abandoned to be substituted by another one. P.W.5s evidence appears to be clear, cogent and trustworthy. Nothing substantial has been brought on record to disregard tlie testimony of this witness. Though PW3 changed his version, yet his evidence does not get totally wiped out. The part of it, which is reliable, can be taken note of. The evidence of this witness notwithstanding his making a different version G provides some corroboration, though the evidence of P. W.5 alone was sufficient to fix the guilt of the accused persons. Merely because of the fact that there were some minor omissions, which are but natural, considering the fact that the examination in court took place years after the occurrence, the evidence does not become suspect. Necessarily H there cannot be exact and precise reproduction in any mathematical SUNIL KUMAR v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT [PA
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.