Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan  Insc 301 (21 July 2003)
Raju & Arijit Pasayat Arijit Pasayat, J.
for offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short
'IPC') made by learned Sessions Judge, Kota, having been confirmed by a
Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, this appeal has been
preferred by the accused.
scenario as unfolded during trial is as follows:
26.4.1994, septuagenarian Lattor Lal (hereinafter referred to as 'the
deceased') lost his life at about 7.30 a.m. He was going with his cows in front of one Madan Lal's house.
Accused-appellant Chittar Lal gave him a knife blow resulting in instantaneous
death. This incident was witnessed by Dhan Raj (PW3), Shiv Prakash (PW5), Nathu
Lal (PW6) and others. Son of the deceased, Heera Lal (PW1) lodged the report at
the police station at about 8.15 a.m.
being told that accused was coming towards the house of Heera Lal (PW1), his
mother closed the door. When he went to the roof, he saw accused who had a
knife in his hand was running towards the hospital. He reached the spot and
found his father dead. The background motive for the assault was said to be
execution of a Will of one house by Moti Lal, father of the accused in favour
of his daughter Smt. Ganga Bai (PW16), who later on sold the house to Bharat
Kumar (PW8) (brother of the informant). Accused did not like the transaction
and had developed animus towards the deceased.
registration of the First Information Report, investigation was undertaken and
charge sheet was filed.
was conducted by Doctor (PW18), who found two stab injuries; one in pleural
cavity along with fracture of mid sternum V arranged and other ¾" x
¼" deep into abdominal cavity 4", 2" left to umbilicus. The case
was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Kota and trial was held by it.
examined 18 witnesses to further its version.
trial two witnesses who claimed to be eye- witnesses (PWs 5 and 6) made
departure from the statements made during investigation. However, Dhanraj (PW3)
implicated the accused.
Trial Court relying on his evidence held the accused guilty of offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
evidence of PW3 could not have been relied upon as his name did not find place
in the FIR.
on the sole testimony of a young boy of 15, the conviction could not have been
made. The evidence of PW3 is not cogent and credible and lacks reliability. His
presence at the spot of occurrence is doubtful. The incident was claimed to
have taken place at about 7.30 a.m. when
he was supposed to be in the examination hall. He was student of class VI and
it is hard to believe that he secured 20 marks in the oral examination, as
claimed by him. On the contrary it appears that the marks were secured by him
at the examination held on that date. If he appeared at the examination;
question of his having seen the incident does not arise.
appeared for the State of Rajasthan when
the matter is called.
of the person whose name did not figure in the FIR as witness does perforce
become suspect. There can be no hard and fast rule that the names of all
witnesses more particularly eye-witnesses should be indicated in the FIR.
observed by this Court in Shri Bhagwan vs. State of Rajasthan (2001 (6) SCC 296) mere non-mention
of the name of an eye-witness does not render prosecution version fragile.
information was not lodged by an eye-witness. Mental condition of a person
whose father has lost life inevitably gets disturbed. Explanation offered by
witnesses for non- mention of PW3's name is plausible. Additionally it is to be
noted that in the present case the statement of PW3 was recorded on the same
date of incident, immediately after the investigation process was set into
motion. Therefore, the plea that PW3's testimony is doubtful lacks substance.
The other plea was that conviction should not have been made on the basis of a
single witness (PW3)'s testimony. This plea is equally without essence. The
legislative recognition of the fact that no particular number of witnesses can
be insisted upon is amply reflected in Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 (in short 'Evidence Act').
of justice can be affected and hampered if number of witnesses were to be
insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence
of one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of unknown occurrence
where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If
plurality of witnesses would have been the legislative intent cases where the
testimony of a single witness only could be available, in number of crimes
offender would have gone unpunished. It is the quality of evidence of the
single witness whose testimony has to be tested on the touchstone of
credibility and reliability. If the testimony is found to be reliable, there is
no legal impediment to convict the accused on such proof. It is the quality and
not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a
fact. This position has been settled by a series of decisions. The first
decision which has become locus classicus is Mohamad Gugal Esa Mamasan Ger Alalah
v. The King (AIR 1946 PC 3).
Privy Council focused on the difference between English Law where a number of
statutes make conviction impermissible for certain categories of offences on
the testimony of a single witness and Section 134 of Evidence Act. The view has
been echoed in Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras (AIR 1957 SC 614), Guli Chand
and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1974 SC 276), Vahula Bhushan alias Vehuna
Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1989 SC 236), Jagdish Prasad and Ors. v.
State of M.P. (AIR 1994 SC 1251), and Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar (1996 (1)
of PW3 comes unscathed on the acid test of credibility and reliability and,
therefore, there can be no justification in doubting his testimony. Factual
aspect regarding his alleged appearance at examination has been elaborately analysed
by both the Trial Court and the High Court and it has been found that PW3 did
not appear at the examination and his presence at the spot of occurrence has
been established. That being the position, the said plea of the
accused-appellant also fails. Though there was no appearance on behalf of the
State of Rajasthan, Ms. Minakshi Vij who has appeared as amicus curiae very
fairly placed the entire material on record for consideration, and we record
our appreciation for the fair approach.
appeal fails and is dismissed.