Read Time: 17 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that if the evidence of a solitary witness appeals to the court to be wholly reliable, the same can form the foundation for recording a conviction, as it dismissed an appeal by a man against a judgment holding him guilty of murder.

"It is not the law that a conviction cannot be recorded unless there is oral testimony of at least two witnesses matching with each other. It is the quality of evidence and not the quantity that matters," a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Pankaj Mithal said.

Even otherwise, Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ordains that no particular number of witnesses is required, in any case, to prove a fact, the bench added.

Appellant Joy Devaraj's counsel contended that his role had been muddled in the statements of three eye witnesses, so the benefit of doubt must have been given to him. He also referred to contradictions with the nature of the weapon in the attack.

According to the prosecution case, the victim and one of the prosecution witnesses were members of an ‘Anti-Liquor Movement’ in Kannur. They attempted to persuade the public to give up drinking alcohol. On December 24, 1999, one prosecution witness got into an altercation with one of the accused who allegedly was an illicit liquor vendor. The victim had supported the witness which formed the genesis of attack on December 26, 1999, leading to his death.

The bench said, "The threshold for disbelieving a witness is not mere discrepancy or inconsistency but material discrepancy and inconsistency, which renders the account narrated by the witnesses so highly improbable that the same may safely be discarded altogether from consideration".

The court noted during commission of the attack leading to the crime, there were 15 people forming part of the unlawful assembly. 

"We presume, it must have been a very chaotic situation leading to certain discrepancies having arisen in the statements of the witnesses. We cannot expect all the witnesses, when under attack by the accused persons seeking to terrorise those protesting against liquor trade, to possess stellar memories with an accurate recollection of the events. The appellant was required to demonstrate that the incongruities in the statements of the several eye witnesses shook the roots of their credibility," the bench said.

In the present case, the court noted that there was evidence to the effect that the appellant was part of an unlawful assembly which gathered at the place of occurrence. 

The victim had in mind bringing a thriving trade in liquor to be brought to a grinding halt. There was, thus, definite motive for the accused persons including the appellant to throttle the voice of the victim. In such a scenario, the appellant was required to point out serious loopholes in the prosecution story for discrediting the witnesses, the bench said.

The court further noted that although, there were a few inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses but the same were minor and not substantial, so as to erode the credibility of such witnesses. It is clear that two prosecution witnesses have spoken in one common voice that the appellant was the one who stabbed the victim and that he succumbed to the injury caused by such stab, it noted. 

The court also pointed out that the medical evidence supported the version of the two prosecution witnesses that the victim died of haemorrhage caused by an incised wound. None of the discrepancies in the statements of the two witnesses pointed out by the counsel for the appellant, have the effect of shaking the root of their testimonies and make their version unreliable or implausible, it added.

The incident took place at around 7:40 PM. Considering that it was evening time, it is possible that one of the two eyewitnesses standing 5-7 metres from the scene of the incident misidentified the weapon, it said. 

Two eyewitnesses have, however, correctly described the appellant having stabbed the victim in the lower chest/stomach area on the left side, which stood corroborated by the medical report, the court added.

Therefore, the court held that the conviction of the appellant did not call for interference view of the sole testimony of PW2, which was found to be entirely trustworthy. 

With regard to a contention that one of the witnesses had turned hostile, the court said it is settled law that a witness cannot be disbelieved on the sole ground of him turning hostile, the hostility of this witness does not particularly dent the prosecution’s case. 

"He has, in his testimony, not stated an alternative case which would lead us to question the credibility of the other eyewitnesses. We do not find any merit in the argument that merely because he resiled from his statement given to the police, the entire case presented by the prosecution is unreliable," the bench said.

The court also pointed out that it was quite understandable why this witness turned hostile as anybody guesses that those who trade in illicit liquor can go to any extent to keep it thriving. Having witnessed the fate of the victim, he must have felt insecure and, thus, decided against standing by the prosecution case to save his own life, the bench said.

"We hold, without equivocation, that the prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was the person who stabbed the victim during the course of the attack by the accused persons leading to his death," the bench said.

Examining whether the criminal act of the appellant would come within the ambit of Section 300, IPC, the bench said culpable homicide and murder are closely related concepts. 

"It is often said that culpable homicide is the genus and murder is one of species in that genus. All murders are culpable homicide but not all culpable homicides are murder," the court said.

In the case, the court noted the weapon used for the premeditated attack was a dagger, considered a deadly weapon. 

"The victim was stabbed in his chest, which houses multiple vital organs of the body. There was no provocation from the side of the victim. The appellant and other co-accused had reached the place of occurrence with the premeditated intention to cause hurt to the victim, which can be seen from the fact that they formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons with the common intention to attack the victim and thereby put an end to the movement triggered by him to stop trade in illicit liquor," it said.

The court also rejected the appellant’s submission that only one of the eight injuries sustained by the victim was grievous and the rest were simple and hence there was no intention to cause death, saying it could not be accepted after examining the facts of the case. 

It referred to the case of 'Stalin Vs State' (2020), wherein the top court held that death caused by a single stab wound can also be considered murder if the requirements of Section 300, IPC are fulfilled.

The court noted that the appellant participated in a premeditated attack on the victim, armed with a deadly weapon and stabbed the unarmed victim on a vital organ causing his death. The conduct of the appellant is covered by both clauses (1) and (3) of Section 300, IPC, it held.

"The intention to cause death can easily be discerned from the conduct of the appellant and the nature of fatal injury inflicted, which in the ordinary course of nature was sufficient to cause death. Fulfilment of any one condition of Section 300, IPC is enough to convict the appellant under Section 302 thereof, but in the present case not one but two conditions have clearly been shown to exist to nail the appellant for murder," the court added.

The court thus upheld the Kerala High Court's judgment and directed the appellant who was on bail since 2015 to surrender within three weeks to serve out the rest of the sentence of life imprisonment.

Case Title: Joy Devaraj Vs State of Kerala