Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder because the High Court had convicted him on the sole testimony of the deceased's father while disbelieving the same witness, on the same overt act, as against the two co-accused; conviction resting on that rejected account and on conjecture, plus a knife recovered from an open place, was unsustainable.
Issues
- Whether the appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC could rest on the sole testimony of an interested eyewitness whom the High Court found unreliable as to the co-accused involved in the same overt act.
- Whether recovery of the weapon from an open place accessible to all could sustain the conviction.
Provisions considered
- Sections 294(b), 341 and 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860The appellant's conviction and sentence, including life imprisonment for murder, as upheld by the High Court, were set aside because the evidence did not establish guilt; he was acquitted of all charges. (¶¶ 2, 16, 17)
Held
- A conviction may rest on the testimony of a single witness, and the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus does not apply in Indian criminal law; but where the High Court disbelieved the sole eyewitness about the co-accused, noting the incident occurred about 300 metres from where he was, it could not rely on the same testimony about the same overt act to convict the appellant. (¶¶ 11, 12, 14)
- The High Court's finding that, in the natural course of events, no one except the appellant could have caused the injury was based purely on conjecture and surmise. (¶¶ 10, 14)
- The testimony of an interested witness, such as the deceased's father, is not to be discarded for that reason alone, but must be scrutinised with greater caution and circumspection. (¶ 13)
- Recovery of the knife from an open place accessible to everyone could not by itself form the basis of the conviction. (¶ 15)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; appellant acquitted of all charges and directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.