Read Time: 05 minutes
There can be a conviction on the basis of the deposition of the sole eye-witness, if the said witness is found to be trustworthy and/or reliable, the Top Court has reiterated.
The Supreme Court has recently held that merely because the original complainant is not examined cannot be a ground to discard the deposition of an eyewitness.
Similarly, assuming that the recovery of the weapon used is not established or proved also cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when there is a direct evidence of the eye-witness, the Top court has held.
"Recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence is not a sine qua non to convict the accused. If there is a direct evidence in the form of eye-witness, even in the absence of recovery of weapon, the accused can be convicted. Similarly, even in the case of some contradictions with respect to timing of lodging the FIR/complaint cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when the prosecution case is based upon the deposition of eye-witness....", a bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari has held.
With this view, the top court upheld the conviction of a murder accused on the sole reliance of deposition of the eye-witness in the case, as it found no reason to doubt the credibility and/or reliability of the same.
A bench of Justices noted that the eye-witness in the case had, even after thorough cross-examination, stood by what he had stated and had fully supported the case of the prosecution.
It was further noted that the eye-witness was present at both places of occurrence, i.e., first, when the accused attacked the deceased while he was travelling in the car, the eye-witness was present in the car and second, when the accused dashed the car and broke the wind screen and caused injury on the right shoulder of the deceased.
Court also relied on the fact that the eye-witness had categorically seen that when the deceased tried to run away and reached a shed, at that time all the accused chased the deceased, went into the shed, caused injuries on the deceased and then came out of the shed and ran away.
Thus, while restoring the conviction by the trial court, the accused has been directed to surrender before the concerned Jail authorities or concerned Court to undergo the sentence as imposed by the trial Court, within a period of six weeks.
Case Title: State through the Inspector of Police vs. Laly @ Manikandan & Another Etc.
Please Login or Register
