Summary
The Supreme Court upheld Dinesh’s acquittal of destroying evidence, finding it unsafe to rely on the sole alleged eyewitness. She had not identified him, reported the incident only after about six weeks, and her account lacked adequate supporting evidence. Her husband, also said to have witnessed the incident, was not examined without satisfactory explanation; no identification parade or matching of blood groups was undertaken. The separate State appeals concerning the co-accused had already stood dismissed for non-prosecution.
Issues
- Whether the sole eyewitness’s evidence justified interfering with the respondent’s acquittal.
Held
- Conviction can rest on a sole eyewitness whose evidence is reliable and inspires confidence. Courts must scrutinize that testimony cautiously against the other material; quality rather than the number of witnesses is decisive. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- Here the alleged eyewitness described a night-time incident without electricity, did not identify the respondent and remained silent for about one and a half months. Her husband was not examined, no test identification parade was conducted, and the blood stains on the alleged weapon were not linked by blood group to the deceased. Cumulatively, the evidence was unsafe for conviction. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11)
- Only Criminal Appeal 1871/2013 concerning accused No. 2 remained for merits consideration. Appeals 1872 and 1873 concerning accused No. 1 had already stood dismissed for non-prosecution after failure to supply his correct address despite the final opportunity. (¶¶ 4, 5, 11)
Result
State’s surviving appeal dismissed and respondent’s acquittal affirmed. The two appeals concerning the co-accused had already stood dismissed for non-prosecution. Pending applications disposed of.