Testimony of ‘Partially Reliable Witness’ Needs Independent, Credible Corroboration: Supreme Court

An appeal was filed by one Kannaiya challenging a 2009 judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The high court had dismissed a plea by the appellant and three co-accused against their conviction and sentence of life term, which was handed down by the Mhow district court in 1999 in a murder case.

Having examined the matter, the bench said, ''It would not be safe to uphold the conviction of the accused-appellant and the three co-accused namely, Govardhan, Raja Ram and Bhima, as the testimony of the so-called eyewitnesses Madho Singh (PW-5) and Puniya (PW-12) is full of contradictions and inherent improbabilities.''

Since the entire case of the prosecution had fallen, the court extended the benefit of doubt to all the four convicted accused persons in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, even though three of them had not challenged the high court's judgment.

An FIR was lodged on September 28, 1990, alleging that the accused persons were damaging the temporary hutment of Jagya. The informant's son Ramesh, tried to intervene and was thus assaulted, which resulted in his death on October 5, 1990. It was also alleged that the assailants had a political rivalry with the complainant party, and that was the cause of the assault. The Investigating Officer proceeded to arrest all ten assailants named in the FIR. The trial court acquitted six accused persons, namely Babu Lal, Gyan Singh, Birjo, Ram Swaroop, Keshar Singh, and Asha Ram, and at the same time, convicted the accused appellant alongside Govardhan, Raja Ram and Bhima. The high court had subsequently dismissed the appeals filed by the four convicted accused.

Considering the challenge to the high court's judgment, the bench noted the FIR of the incident came to be lodged on the basis of the oral statement of Gobariya, being the father of deceased Ramesh. However, Gobariya did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. Court pointed out that in the FIR, there was no reference to the presence of Puniya, the so-called eye witness, at the crime scene. Furthermore, Jagya, whose hut was damaged, failed to identify any of the assailants during his deposition and was also declared hostile.

The bench said, ''From the evidence of Puniya, it was clear that the incident did not take place at the hut of Jagya as is alleged in the FIR and rather happened in the field of Gopya. This is a very significant contradiction which has a direct bearing on the very foundation of the prosecution case, because the genesis of the occurrence and so also the place of the incident as set out in the FIR have both been materially altered.''

Court also noted Ramesh was a cousin brother of Puniya, and the witness's rank apathy in not assisting Ramesh after he had been belaboured and had fallen down, created a grave doubt regarding Puniya’s presence at the crime scene. The bench also said, ''The discrepancy in the FIR and the version of the witness regarding the number of the accused persons who were armed with sharp weapons is also crucial. The omission of the name of Puniya in the FIR lodged by Gobariya is also a fact which impinges upon the bona fides of the prosecution story which claims that Puniya had also seen the accused persons assaulting Ramesh".

Based on these issues, court found Puniya fell within the category of a “wholly unreliable witness”. It also noted another eye witness, Madho Singh, gave a highly contradictory version regarding the manner in which the incident started (genesis of the occurrence) and the place where Ramesh was assaulted. The bench also found the testimony of Madho Singh to be doubtful, determining he fell within the category of a “partially reliable witness”.

The bench said, ''To act upon his testimony, the prosecution would be required to provide independent and credible corroborative evidence. However, it can be clearly seen that the prosecution has failed to provide any corroborative evidence to render the testimony of Madho Singh trustworthy or reliable".

Court concluded that both the alleged eyewitnesses had tried to supress the genesis of occurrence and also changed the crime scene, and hence, their presence at the spot became doubtful.

''Such conflicting versions cannot co-exist within a credible narrative,'' the bench said. Court finally held that the conviction of the appellant and the three co-accused, namely, Govardhan, Raja Ram and Bhima, as recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the high court, did not stand to scrutiny. It set aside those judgments and ordered the release of the four accused, if not required in any other case.

Case Title: Kannaiya Vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Judgment Date: October 17, 2025