Summary
Eight relatives were convicted of murdering a man in a Karnataka village in 2004 with twenty-one stab wounds over a dispute about a cart road; most prosecution witnesses turned hostile and the conviction rested on the deceased's brother as sole eyewitness, supported by the unrefuted part of a hostile witness's testimony. Three convicts appealed, contending that eight men could not be jailed for life on a solitary interested witness. A three-Judge Bench dismissed the appeals: the brother's account was consistent and ascribed specific roles, the presence of the accused at the spot was undisputed, a relative's evidence is not to be mechanically rejected, under Masalti specific acts need not be attributed to each member of an unlawful assembly, and delay in the FIR reaching the Magistrate causes no infirmity absent prejudice.
Issues
- Whether the conviction of eight accused for murder can rest on the testimony of a sole eyewitness who is the brother of the deceased, when most other prosecution witnesses turned hostile.
- Whether delay in the FIR reaching the Magistrate and the drafting of the complaint by an advocate render the prosecution case doubtful.
Provisions considered
- Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860Members of an unlawful assembly are vicariously liable for offences committed in prosecution of its common object; following Masalti, where many assailants are involved the prosecution need not prove which member did which act, and mere presence in the assembly may fasten liability. (¶¶ 17.8, 24)
- Section 106 and principles on hostile and single witnesses, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The corroborated part of a hostile witness's evidence is admissible and can found a conviction; an absolutely reliable single witness suffices; and a close relative is not to be disbelieved merely for that reason, the maxim falsus in uno not being of general application. (¶¶ 17.1, 17.3, 17.4, 25)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaConcurrent findings are disturbed only for special circumstances or gross errors overlooking crying circumstances or misapplying settled principles; no such error was shown. (¶¶ 7, 17.10, 23)
Held
- The land dispute between the parties was borne out by the brother and partly by hostile witnesses; the brother consistently deposed that all eight accused emerged from the bushes, chased the deceased, threw chilli powder, and struck him with jambias and button knives, ascribing roles to each; the presence of the accused at the spot was not disputed and was confirmed by the unrefuted parts of other witnesses' evidence, so his testimony is credible, trustworthy and sufficient. (¶¶ 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 21, 23)
- Delay in the FIR reaching the Magistrate is not fatal absent demonstrated prejudice, and here an FIR registered at 4.45 pm was received by 1.15 am; the drafting of the complaint by an advocate for an illiterate complainant casts no doubt on the genesis of the case; and lack of recoveries from most accused or the hostility of other witnesses does not warrant rejecting the eyewitness. The trial court is best placed to assess a witness and its findings, affirmed by the High Court, call for no interference. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 25, 26)
Result
Appeals dismissed; convictions and life sentences affirmed by the Karnataka High Court on 20.11.2009 upheld; accused on bail directed to surrender forthwith; pending applications disposed of.