"It is not the quantity of witnesses but quality which matters": Top Court

It is not the quantity of the witnesses but the quality of witnesses which matters, the Supreme Court has held.

A division bench of Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath has further held that it is the discretion of the prosecution to lead as much evidence as is necessary for proving the charge.

These observations came to be made by the division bench while hearing an appeal assailing the correctness of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court whereby the conviction recorded by the trial court under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and other
allied offences, both under the IPC as also the Arms Cct,1959 had been affirmed.

Only one eye-witness was examined in the case. She was one Pinky Singh, whose parents, brother and brother-in-law were murdered by the accused at night over a property dispute. She was also attacked by the accused.

Notably, the trial court had relied on the injured witness whose injuries had not been challenged.

The primary argument raised by the appellants was that the case was based on the evidence of a solitary witness, who was related to the deceased and had enmity with the appellants.

It was further highlighted that Pinky Singh did not disclose the names of the appellants at the first instance and the FIR was registered against unidentified persons. Appellants also relied on the fact that the statement of Pinky Singh was not recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC and two other witnesses who also claimed to be in the house at the time of offence were not examined.

"There is no reason why PW-­1 would make false implication and allow the real assailants to go scot­free. A perusal of her testimony shows that she has fully supported the prosecution story as narrated by her in her statement under section 161 CrPC. Even during cross-examination nothing has been elicited from her which in any way may weaken or demolish her testimony. She was a fully reliable witness and has stated the things in natural course", the division bench noted.

Court was further of the view that non-examination of the statement under section 164 CrPC also had no relevance or bearing on the findings and conclusions arrived at by the courts below.

"It was for the investigating officer to have got the statement under Section 164 CrPC recorded. If he did not think it necessary in his wisdom, it cannot have any bearing on the testimony of eye-witness and the other material evidence led during trial", the bench added.

Case Title: AJAI ALIAS AJJU ETC. ETC. vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH