Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently observed that when a witness is found to be partly reliable and partly unreliable, in such a case, the conviction cannot be maintained unless there is some corroboration to the testimony of such a witness.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K Vinod Chandran set aside the Bombay High Court and trial court judgments, which had found appellants Rajkumar and Mehatar guilty in a case related to the murder of two brothers, Diwaru and Shyamrao, on December 20, 2005, following a quarrel over the grazing of goats on the farm of complainant Sindhubai.

In the case, the trial court had convicted all 10 accused in 2007. On their appeal, the High Court acquitted six of them in 2012. However, one of the accused died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, which convicted Rajkumar, Baburao, and Mehatar.

Of the three, Baburao passed away while the appeal was pending before the apex court.

Their counsel argued that the High Court had grossly erred in dismissing the appeals of appellants Rajkumar and Mehatar. He submitted that the High Court had disbelieved the evidence of Sindhubai, the wife of one of the deceased, concerning the six acquitted persons.

The state counsel, on the other hand, contended that Sindhubai had given a detailed account of how the incident occurred. He submitted that, regarding appellant Rajkumar, he had been assigned the role of assaulting the deceased with an axe, which was corroborated by the post-mortem report.

The bench noted that the trial court had found Sindhubai’s testimony fully trustworthy. However, the division bench of the High Court considered her testimony partly reliable and partly unreliable. The High Court attempted to separate the chaff from the grain to maintain the conviction of the appellants.

"No doubt that the conviction can also be based on the testimony of an interested witness. However, for doing so, the testimony of such a witness will have to be examined with greater caution and circumspection. If the evidence of such a witness is found to be reliable, then only the conviction could be maintained. Equally, even in a case of a sole witness, the conviction could be maintained if the evidence of such a witness is of sterling quality. However, when the evidence of a sole witness is found to be doubtful, then the Courts would always seek for some corroboration while maintaining the conviction," the bench said.

The court pointed out that Sindhubai’s testimony contained numerous omissions and contradictions. It observed that although she was a rustic villager and minor contradictions should be overlooked, the High Court’s findings made it clear that even it had expressed doubts about whether Sindhubai could have witnessed the incident.

"If the judges of the High Court find the testimony of Sindhubai to be doubtful on the issue as to whether she could have witnessed the incident or not, then it is difficult to appreciate as to how the High Court believed that she could witness the assault by other three accused," the bench said.

Citing Vedivelu Thevar Vs State of Madras (1957), the bench reiterated that when a witness is found to be wholly reliable, there is no difficulty, as the conviction can be based on their testimony. However, when a witness is found to be partly reliable and partly unreliable, the conviction cannot be maintained unless corroboration is available.

In the present case, the bench said, "Even accepting the view of the High Court that Sindhubai would fall within the category of partly reliable and partly unreliable, in such an event the High Court should have insisted upon some corroboration to the testimony of such a witness. However, the High Court has itself found that the prosecution has not examined other witnesses and as such, there was no corroboration to her testimony."

Though Sindhubai (PW-1) stated that she had lodged a complaint at the police station expressing apprehension about Rajkumar’s threat, no such complaint was placed on record, the court noted.

"We are, therefore, of the considered view that the High Court was not justified in resting the conviction of the appellants herein solely on the basis of the evidence of Sindhubai when her testimony was found to be largely unreliable. For doing so, the High Court should have insisted upon some corroboration," the bench said.

Court held that since there was no corroboration of Sindhubai’s testimony, the conviction was not sustainable.

Accordingly, court acquitted the two appellants of all charges, granting them the benefit of the doubt.

Of the two appellants, Mehatar was out on bail, while Rajkumar, who was in jail, was ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Case Title: Mehatar Vs The State of Maharashtra