VEER SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2013] 17 S.C.R. 430 · Decided: 10-12-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013) 17 S.C.R. 430 
VEER SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 256-257 of 2009) 
DECEMBER 10, 2013 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 147, 148, 3071149, 3021149 and 
C 452 - Prosecution under - Murder of 12 persons - Attempt 
of murder of another member of that family (PW4-injured eye-
witness) - Conviction of appellants-accused and award of 
death sentence by trial court - High Court confirmed their 
conviction but reduced the death sentence to life 
D · imprisonment - On appeal, held: The prosecution case is 
proved by the injured eye-witness, official witness and medical 
evidence - Motive for the offence also proved - The testimony 
of the injured eye-witness, is reliable being cogent credible 
and trustworthy - Hence conviction and sentence confirmed. 
E 
Evidence - Adequacy of - Held: Legal system lays 
emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than 
on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses - As a general 
rule, Court may act on the testimony of sole witness provided 
such evidence is wholly reliable - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 
F 
134. 
Witness - Hostile witness - Evidentiary value of - Held: 
Testimony of hostile witness need not be discarded in toto -
The portion of testimony, supporting the prosecution case, can 
G be taken into consideration. 
Appellants-accused (accused Nos. 1 to 5) alongwith 
3 other accused (accused Nos. 6 to 8) were prosecuted 
for the offences u/ss. 147, 148, 307/149, 302/149 and 452 
H 
430 
VEER SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. 
431 
IPC. The prosecution case was that the accused persons 
A 
killed 12 persons and also attempted to kill PW 4 who 
managed to escape from the scene. Trial court acquitted 
accused Nos. 6 to 8 while convicting the appellants" 
accused and sentenced them to death for the offence of 
murder alongwith other sentences for other offences. s 
High Court further acquitted all the accused of all the 
charges. When the State approached this Court, the 
matter was remanded to High Court. On re-appraisal of 
the case, the High Court upheld the conviction of the 
appellants-accused, but altered their death sentence to c 
life imprisonment. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellants-accused inter 
alia contended that the evidence of the eye-witnesss was 
not reliable as there were many material improvements 
in her statement; that the occurrence being a mid-night D 
occurrence, in the absence of effective source of light, 
recognition of the assailants by the witnesses was 
doubtful; and that no motive was attributable to the 
appellants. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. From the evidence on record, it can be held 
that appellants along with other accused armed with 
weapons, had committed trespass into the dwelling 
houses of victims during mid-night with a view to commit 
murder of their family members and carried out the same. 
The High Court has rightly sustained the conviction on 
the appellants and the sentence awarded to them are 
also proper. [Para 20) [446-D, E] 
2. From the testimony of PW 4, it becomes evident 
that she has witnessed the occurrence and also 
sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the 
occurrence in the morning itself, she was admitted in the 
hospital ·for treatment and information· was sent to 
E 
F 
G 
432 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 17 S.C.R. 
A Magistrate for recording her dying declaration. The 
injuries sustained by her were serious in nature. Her reply 
to the SOM pertained only to that part of the occurrence 
in which she was injured and not the entire occurrence. 
PW 4, in her testimony before the Court has clearly stated 
B as to why she has given a limited answer to the 
Magistrate. Further it is not a dying declaration since she 
survived and it is only a statement under Section 164 of 
the Cr.P.C. which can be used under Section 157 of the 
Evidence Act for the purpose of corroboration and under 
c Section 155 of the Act for the purpose of contradiction. 
This statement did not relate to the entire occurrence. It 
must be borne in mind that she had witnessed the brutal 
murder of all her family. members by the appellants and 
other accused during the occurrence and when she was 
0 in a state of shock in the hospital, she had given answer 
to the question put by the Magistrate. After regaining her 
health, when she was examined by the Investigation 
Officer, she has stated the entire occurrence naming the 
assailants and the at

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