Supreme Court of India
CHITTAR LAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
- Decided
- 21 July 2003
- Judges listed
- DORAISWAMY RAJU
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 633 · 2003 INSC 325
- Also cited as
- JT 2003 (7) SC 270
- (2003) SCC(CRI) 1377
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. Conviction for offence punishable under 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.
p. 635, margin C
Factual scenario as unfolded during trial is as follows:
p. 635, margin C
On 26.4.1994, septuagenarian Lattor Lal (hereinafter referred to deceased') lost his life at about 7.30 a.m. He was going with his cows of one Madan Lal' s house. Accused-appellant Chittar Lal gave him blow resulting in instantaneous death. This incident was witnessed by Raj (PW3), Shiv Prakash (PW5), Nathu Lal (PW6) and others. Son deceased, Heera Lal (PWI) lodged the report at the police station at 8.15 a.m. On being told that accused was coming towards the house of Lal (PW!), his mother closed the door. When he went to the roof, accused who had a knife in his hand was running towards the hospital. reached the spot and found his father dead. The background motive assault was said to be execution of a Will of one house by Moti Lal, of the accused in favour of his daughter Smt. Ganga Bai (PWI 6), who 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. On registration of the First Information Report, investigation was undertaken and charge sheet was filed. Post-mortem was conducted by Doctor (PW! who found two stab injuries; one in pleural cavity along with fracture sternum V arranged and other 3/4" x 1/4" deep into abdominal cavity left to umbilicus. The case was committed to the court of Sessions Kota and trial was held by it. Prosecution examined 18 witnesses to its version. Accused pleaded innocence.
p. 635, margin D
During trial two witnesses who claimed to be eye-witnesses 6) made departure from the statements made during investigation. Dhanraj (PW3) implicated the accused.
p. 636, margin A
The Trial Court relying on his evidence held the offence punishable under Section 302 !PC and sentenced imprisonment for life.
p. 636, margin A
In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the that evidence of PW3 could not have been relied upon find place in the FIR. Additionally on the sole testimony 15, the conviction could not have been made. The evidence of cogent and credible and lacks reliability. His presence at is doubtful. The incident was claimed to have taken place when he was supposed to be in the examination hall. He VI and it is hard to believe that he secured 20 marks in as claimed by him. On the contrary it appears that the by him at the examination held on that date. If he appeared question of his having seen the incident does not arise.
p. 636, margin B
None appeared for the State of Rajasthan when
p. 636, margin D
Evidence of the person whose name did not figure does not perforce become suspect. There can be no hard names of all witnesses more particularly eye-witnesses should the FIR. As was observed by this Court in Shri Bhagwan (200 I] 6 SCC 296 mere non-mention of the name of an render prosecution version fragile. The information was witness. Mental condition of a person whose father has gets disturbed. Explanation offered by witnesses for non-mention name is plausible. Additionally it is to be noted that in statement of PW3 was recorded on the same date of after the investigation process was set into motion. Therefore, PW3 's testimony is doubtful lacks substance. The conviction should not have been made on the basis of a single testimony. This plea is equally without essence. The legislative of the fact thilt no particular number of witnesses can amply reflected in Section 134 of the Indian Evidence 'Evidence Act'). Administration of justice can be affected number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. It is not 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. The Privy Counci! 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 a/Tamil Nadu, AIR (1989) SC 236, Jagdish Prasad and Ors. v. State of M.P., AIR (1994) SC 1251 and Karlik Malhar v. Siate of Bihar, [1996] 1 SCC 614.
pp. 636–637, margin D
Evidence 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.
p. 637, margin D
The appeal fails and is dismissed. K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.
p. 637, margin F