Summary
A man was convicted under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and the Arms Act for shooting a young man dead near the Circuit House at Surendranagar in January 2002, on the testimony of the deceased's friend as sole eyewitness, an alleged money dispute and recovery of a gun on his disclosure; the Gujarat High Court affirmed. A three-Judge Bench acquitted him after nearly two decades of incarceration: the eyewitness, a 24-year-old shopkeeper, went home and slept after allegedly seeing his friend shot, sought no help from the police headquarters minutes away, told no one until the next morning, improved his version and named the accused only on police interrogation; the father's account did not corroborate him; the independent witness who took the deceased to hospital heard no shot and left the autorickshaw driver unidentified; and nothing scientifically linked the recovered weapon to the crime.
Issues
- Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of a sole eyewitness whose conduct after the incident was unnatural and whose version was improved, where the recovered weapon was not scientifically linked to the crime.
Provisions considered
- Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860Conviction and life sentence set aside for want of reliable evidence connecting the accused to the shooting. (¶¶ 1, 18, 20)
- Sections 25(1A) and 27(2), Arms Act, 1959Convictions set aside; apart from the confessional statement nothing linked the recovered weapon to the accused or to the pellets found in the deceased, and the prosecution failed its duty to establish use of the discovered weapon. (¶¶ 1, 14, 15)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaConcurrent findings are ordinarily not disturbed, but interference is warranted where absurd or erroneous conclusions amount to a travesty of justice, as here. (¶ 17)
Held
- Following Anil Phukan, conviction may rest on a single eyewitness only if wholly reliable; this witness repeatedly improved on his police statement, did not approach the police headquarters three to four minutes away, abandoned his bleeding friend, went home to sleep, informed the family only the next morning, had no knowledge of any money transaction, and named the accused only when interrogated at 4.30 pm, so his testimony is unbelievable and uncorroborated. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10)
- The independent witness who first informed the father did not hear the gunshot, had an unidentified autorickshaw driver take the deceased to hospital, and contradicted himself about when he informed the police; the father did not corroborate the eyewitness's claim of disclosure to the family; another witness did not support the prosecution; and the High Court merely reproduced precedents without appreciating the evidence. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19)
Result
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar dated 19.07.2003 as affirmed by the Gujarat High Court on 29.12.2011 set aside; appellant acquitted of all charges and directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.