LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be sustained based on the sole testimony of an eye-witness, when other co-accused mentioned by the same witness have been acquitted.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Kripal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan
[Judgment Date]: 15 February 2019
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 15 February 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 109
Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Ajay Rastogi, J. (authored the opinion)
Can a murder conviction stand when it primarily relies on the testimony of a single eyewitness, especially if the same testimony is deemed unreliable for other accused individuals involved in the same incident? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Kripal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan. This judgment examines the extent to which a court can rely on a single eyewitness account when parts of that account have been discredited. The bench comprised Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi, with Justice Rastogi authoring the opinion.
Case Background
On July 28, 2001, at approximately 6:30 PM, Sunil Kumar Goyal (PW-13), along with his brother Yashwant and Paras Mal, were traveling on a motorcycle to their agricultural farm in Doodhlai village. While returning, they were confronted by Kripal Singh (the appellant), Ramlal, Arjun Singh, and Sultan Singh near Dhoole Singh’s house. The four assailants, armed with axes, lathis, dharias, swords, and pharsas, surrounded the motorcycle and attacked Yashwant. Sunil Kumar Goyal and Paras Mal managed to escape, but Yashwant was severely beaten. Kripal Singh also struck Paras Mal with an axe on his left shoulder while they were fleeing. Following the incident, Sunil Kumar Goyal filed a police report, leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR).
Yashwant succumbed to his injuries. Initially, all four accused were arrested, and a charge sheet was filed against them under Sections 302 (murder), 394 (robbery), 394/34 (robbery with common intention), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial court acquitted Ramlal, Arjun Singh, and Sultan Singh but convicted Kripal Singh under Sections 302, 394 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Kripal Singh appealed this conviction, and the State of Rajasthan appealed the acquittal of the other three accused. The High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan dismissed both appeals, upholding Kripal Singh’s conviction. Kripal Singh then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| July 28, 2001, 6:30 PM | Incident occurred; Yashwant attacked and injured. |
| July 28, 2001, 9:15 PM | Sunil Kumar Goyal (PW-13) files a written report at Police Station Dug. |
| 2001 | All four accused arrested and charge sheet filed. |
| November 22, 2002 | Trial Court convicts Kripal Singh and acquits the other three accused. |
| February 4, 2008 | High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan dismisses both appeals and upholds the conviction of Kripal Singh |
| February 15, 2019 | Supreme Court dismisses Kripal Singh’s appeal, upholding his conviction. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court acquitted Ram Lal, Arjun Singh, and Sultan Singh, finding their involvement doubtful. However, the trial court convicted Kripal Singh under Sections 302, 394 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan upheld the trial court’s decision, dismissing both Kripal Singh’s appeal against his conviction and the State’s appeal against the acquittal of the other three accused. The High Court agreed that the evidence against Kripal Singh was credible, despite the acquittal of the other accused.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:
- Section 302: This section defines the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
- Section 394: This section deals with voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery. It states, “If, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, the offender voluntarily causes hurt, such offender, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
- Section 324: This section addresses voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. It states, “Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments (Kripal Singh):
- The primary argument was that the conviction was solely based on the testimony of Sunil Kumar Goyal (PW-13), who was the sole eye-witness.
- The appellant contended that the injury attributed to him on the head of the deceased was not the only cause of death, as per the medical evidence of PW-6 and PW-7.
- It was argued that since the other three co-accused, who also inflicted injuries, were acquitted, the appellant alone could not be held guilty of causing the fatal injury under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant argued that at most, he could be convicted under Section 304 Part I or II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
- The appellant argued that PW-13 was an interested and unreliable witness, as he was disbelieved regarding the other three co-accused.
- The appellant also challenged the recovery memos of the axe, dhoti, and motorcycle, stating that they were attested by police personnel without independent witnesses. It was argued that a presumption of independent evidence cannot be made under Section 114 of the Evidence Act based on statements by police officers.
Respondent’s Arguments (State of Rajasthan):
- The State argued that the testimony of Sunil Kumar Goyal (PW-13) was reliable and consistent.
- The State contended that the medical evidence from PW-6 and PW-7 corroborated the eyewitness account, stating that the injury caused by the appellant was sufficient to cause death.
- Although Paras Mal (PW-1) turned hostile, his medical legal report (MLR) indicated that he was also injured by the appellant, supporting the presence of the accused and the deposition of Sunil Kumar Goyal (PW-13).
- The State argued that the recovery of the axe at the behest of the appellant and the motorcycle of the deceased was duly proved by the police witnesses. The State relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Baldev Singh vs. State of Haryana 2015(17) SCC 554 and Girja Prasad(Dead) by LRs vs. State of M.P. 2007(7) SCC 625, stating that police witness evidence should not be disregarded.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Sole Eyewitness Testimony | PW-13 (Sunil Kumar Goyal) is the sole eye-witness and his testimony is not reliable. | Appellant |
| PW-13’s testimony is reliable and consistent. | Respondent | |
| Cause of Death | The injury on the head was not the sole cause of death. | Appellant |
| Medical evidence corroborates that the injury caused by the appellant was sufficient to cause death. | Respondent | |
| Acquittal of Co-accused | Since co-accused were acquitted, the appellant cannot be held solely responsible under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. | Appellant |
| The acquittal of co-accused does not diminish the evidence against the appellant. | Respondent | |
| Reliability of Witness | PW-13 is an interested and unreliable witness. | Appellant |
| PW-13’s testimony is corroborated by medical evidence and other facts. | Respondent | |
| Recovery of Evidence | Recovery memos were attested by police personnel without independent witnesses. | Appellant |
| Police witness evidence is valid and should not be disregarded. | Respondent |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following key issue:
- Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on the sole testimony of the eye-witness Sunil Kumar Goyal (PW-13), is sustainable when the same witness was disbelieved regarding the involvement of the other three co-accused.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on the sole testimony of the eye-witness Sunil Kumar Goyal (PW-13), is sustainable when the same witness was disbelieved regarding the involvement of the other three co-accused. | The Court held that the conviction was sustainable. It noted that the testimony of PW-13 was consistent with the FIR and was corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the weapon. The court emphasized that the acquittal of other co-accused did not negate the credibility of the evidence against the appellant. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Rizan and Another vs. State of Chhatisgarh through the Chief Secretary, Government of Chhatisgarh, Raipur, Chattisgarh 2003(2) SCC 661 | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this case to emphasize that even if a major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, the residue, if sufficient, can prove the guilt of an accused. The principle of “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” (false in one thing, false in everything) does not apply in India. It is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff. |
| Vutukuru Lakshmaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2015(11) SCC 102 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to support the view that the acquittal of some accused persons does not necessarily invalidate the conviction of others if there is sufficient evidence against them. |
| Baldev Singh vs. State of Haryana 2015(17) SCC 554 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to emphasize that the evidence of police officials cannot be disregarded merely because they are police officers. |
| Girja Prasad(Dead) by LRs vs. State of M.P. 2007(7) SCC 625 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to support the view that police witness evidence should not be disregarded. |
| Hari Kishan vs. State of Haryana 2010(2) SCC 131 | Supreme Court of India | The Court distinguished this case, noting it involved a serious dispute about when the incident took place and the medical evidence did not support the prosecution’s version. |
| Arshad Hussain vs. State of Rajasthan 2013(14) SCC 104 | Supreme Court of India | The Court distinguished this case, noting that the prosecution had suppressed the genesis and manner of the incident, and the nature of weapons used did not support the prosecution’s version. |
| Nisar Ali v. State of U. P. AIR 1957 SC 366 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to state that the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has no application in India. |
| Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1956 SC 460 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to state that it is always open to a Court to differentiate accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted. |
| Sohrab v. State of M. P. 1972(3) SCC 751 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to state that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. |
| Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar AIR 1965 SC 277 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to state that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. |
| Zwinglee Ariel v. State of M. P. AIR 1954 SC 15 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to state that where it is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, the only available course to be made is to discard the evidence in toto. |
| Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab 1975(4) SCC 511 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to state that where it is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, the only available course to be made is to discard the evidence in toto. |
| State of Rajasthan v. Kalki 1981(2) SCC 752 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to state that normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. |
| Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar 2002(6) SCC 81 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to state that normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party’s case, material discrepancies do so. |
| Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa 2002(8) SCC 381 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to state that normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party’s case, material discrepancies do so. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| The conviction was solely based on the testimony of Sunil Kumar Goyal (PW-13), who was the sole eye-witness. | The Court acknowledged this but found PW-13’s testimony to be credible and consistent with the FIR. |
| The injury attributed to the appellant on the head of the deceased was not the only cause of death. | The Court noted the medical evidence (PW-6 and PW-7) stated that the injury on the head was sufficient to cause death. |
| Since the other three co-accused, who also inflicted injuries, were acquitted, the appellant alone could not be held guilty of causing the fatal injury under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. | The Court rejected this argument, stating the acquittal of co-accused does not negate the evidence against the appellant. |
| PW-13 was an interested and unreliable witness, as he was disbelieved regarding the other three co-accused. | The Court held that PW-13’s testimony was credible and corroborated by other evidence. |
| The recovery memos of the axe, dhoti, and motorcycle were attested by police personnel without independent witnesses. | The Court found that the recovery was valid and police witness testimony was acceptable. |
| The testimony of Sunil Kumar Goyal (PW-13) was reliable and consistent. | The Court accepted this submission and found it supported by the evidence. |
| The medical evidence from PW-6 and PW-7 corroborated the eyewitness account, stating that the injury caused by the appellant was sufficient to cause death. | The Court accepted this submission, finding the medical evidence corroborated the eyewitness account. |
| Although Paras Mal (PW-1) turned hostile, his medical legal report (MLR) indicated that he was also injured by the appellant, supporting the presence of the accused and the deposition of Sunil Kumar Goyal (PW-13). | The Court acknowledged this and used it to support the presence of the appellant. |
| The recovery of the axe at the behest of the appellant and the motorcycle of the deceased was duly proved by the police witnesses. | The Court accepted this submission and found the police witness testimony to be valid. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court relied on Rizan and Another vs. State of Chhatisgarh through the Chief Secretary, Government of Chhatisgarh, Raipur, Chattisgarh 2003(2) SCC 661* to emphasize that the principle of “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” does not apply in India.
- The Court cited Vutukuru Lakshmaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2015(11) SCC 102* to support the view that the acquittal of some accused persons does not necessarily invalidate the conviction of others.
- The Court cited Baldev Singh vs. State of Haryana 2015(17) SCC 554* and Girja Prasad(Dead) by LRs vs. State of M.P. 2007(7) SCC 625* to support the view that police witness evidence should not be disregarded.
- The Court distinguished Hari Kishan vs. State of Haryana 2010(2) SCC 131* and Arshad Hussain vs. State of Rajasthan 2013(14) SCC 104*, noting that the facts of these cases were different and did not apply to the present case.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the reliability of the eyewitness testimony of Sunil Kumar Goyal (PW-13), the corroborating medical evidence, and the recovery of the weapon and motorcycle. The court emphasized that the acquittal of other co-accused does not negate the credibility of the evidence against the appellant. The court also reiterated that police witness testimony is valid and should not be disregarded. The Court also highlighted that the principle of “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” is not applicable in India, and that the courts should separate the grain from the chaff.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony | 30% |
| Corroborating Medical Evidence | 25% |
| Recovery of Weapon and Motorcycle | 20% |
| Acquittal of Co-accused | 15% |
| Validity of Police Witness Testimony | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The court’s emphasis on the factual aspects of the case, particularly the eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, indicates a higher weighting towards the facts (60%) than the legal considerations (40%).
Logical Reasoning
Key Takeaways
- A conviction can be sustained based on the testimony of a single eyewitness if the court finds the testimony credible and consistent with other evidence.
- The principle of “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” (false in one thing, false in everything) is not applicable in India. Courts must separate the grain from the chaff.
- The acquittal of some accused persons does not automatically invalidate the conviction of other accused persons if there is sufficient evidence against them.
- Police witness testimony is valid and should not be disregarded merely because they are police officers.
- Medical evidence plays a crucial role in corroborating eyewitness accounts, especially in cases involving physical harm.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the appellant, who was on bail, should surrender forthwith to serve the remaining part of his sentence. The bail bonds were cancelled.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be sustained based on the sole testimony of an eye-witness if the court finds the testimony to be credible and consistent with the FIR and medical evidence, even when other co-accused mentioned by the same witness have been acquitted. This judgment reinforces the principle that each case must be evaluated on its own facts and that the credibility of a witness is not automatically diminished if parts of their testimony are disbelieved in relation to other accused.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of Kripal Singh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court found the testimony of the sole eyewitness to be reliable and corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the weapon. The judgment clarifies that the acquittal of co-accused does not negate the credibility of the evidence against the appellant and that police witness testimony is valid. The Court emphasized that the principle of “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” is not applicable in India.