YAKUB ISMAILBHAI PATEL versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 978 · Decided: 31-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
YAKUB ISMAILBHAI PATEL 
v. 
ST ATE OF GUJARAT 
AUGUST 31, 2004 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 302 read with section 34-Prosecution 
case that accused persons inflicted injuries on the vital part of deceased 
which resulted in his death-Conviction and sentence by trial court on 
C basis of evidence-High Court upheld the same-Justification of-Held : 
Prosecution case Proved beyond reasonable doubt-Evidence of sole eye-
witness wholly reliable and stands corroborated by other circumstances 
and evidence of other prosecution witness throwing light on the conduct 
of accused on the day of incident and also blood stained weapon of offence 
D recovered at the instance of accused-Furthermore, cumulative effect of 
injuries found on the dead body sufficient in ordinary course of nature to 
cause death and the injury found on the vital part of the body alone could 
have caused death-Also non-production of material witnesses and even 
the discrepancies pointed out not affecting the prosecution case-Hence, 
conviction and sentence imposed by courts below justified-Evidence Act, 
E 1872-Sections 3 and 114, illustration (g). 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 23. 
Witness-Prosecution witness-Application for examination of, as 
F defence witness-Admissibility of-Held: Once the witness is examined as 
a prosecution witness, he cannot be allowed to perjure himself by resiling 
fi"om the testimony given in Court. 
Solitary witness-Testimony of-Test for reliability-Explained. 
G 
According to the prosecution, appellant-accused No. 1 and accused 
no 2 along with other person attacked N with kukari and inflicted 
injuries on the neck of N which resulted in his death. Investigations 
were carried out. Accused were arrested and weapons were recovered 
at their instance. Prosecution witnesses were examined. PW-1, friend 
H of N deposed that the day befor~ the incident there was a dispute 
978 
Y.I. PATEL v. STATE 
979 
between accsued No. I and N in respect of railway quarter and on the A 
day of the incident while he was approaching the railway tracks, he 
saw accused No. I and 2 along with others running and accused No. 
I and 2 had kukari in their hands. He went towards the fueJ rooni of 
the diesel shed and saw dead body of N lying in a pool of blood near 
tlte railway track and also saw injuries on the throat and on the face B 
of N. He also saw PW-2 standing near the body of the deceased. 
Thereafter, PW-I and PW-2 went to the Police Station to lodge 
complaint. 
00'· 
It is the case of PW-2 that he accompanied N to his office to drop C 
sick note because N was sick and did not sign the muster roll. PW-2 
also deposed that while he was present in the railway office, accused 
No. I and 2 along with another person inflicted injuries with sharp 
dangerous weapons on the neck of N and on witnessing this ghastly 
attack, PW-2 ran away from the spot out of fear and came back after 
some time and saw body at a distance of 200 ft. from office and did D 
not see any blood, on his way to office and PW-1 was standing there. 
PW-2. also deposed that there were four other railway employees who 
were present at the scene of offence. Out of the four eye witnesses, 
prosecution called upon only two eye witnesses for deposition. Doctor 
who conducted the autopsy deposed that the victim had sustained E 
multiple injuries which were caused by sharp edged deep penetrating 
weapons. Trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant along with 
other co-accused under section 302 read with section 34 IPC. High 
Court upheld the order. Hence, the present appeal, 
Appellant-accused No. I contended that the prosecution has failed F 
to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and, as such the conviction 
should be set aside; that the courts below have based the conviction 
of the appellant on sole ocular testimony of PW-2 and as such no 
reliance can be placed on the statement of PW-1; that the statements 
of PW-I and PW-2, even though establish their irrespective presence G 
near the railway tracks are, in fact, contradictory as regards who was 
there first at the railway tracks near the body; that the statement of 
PW2, sole eye-witness fails to meet the test of 'entire reliability; that 
the testimony of PW-2 to the effect that there were other employees 
present at the time of the occurrence is belied by the evidence of two H 
980 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A of the employees, who have deposed oth

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