Holding

A conviction can be based on the testimony of a single reliable eyewitness even if the witness is related to the deceased, and no mandatory corroboration is required.

Summary

The State of Rajasthan appealed against the acquittal of Om Prakash, who had been convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC by the trial court based primarily on the testimony of a single eyewitness who was the younger brother of the deceased. The Rajasthan High Court set aside the conviction, holding that a solitary witness, especially a relative, must be corroborated. The Supreme Court examined whether a conviction can rest on such testimony and found that the witness’s evidence was reliable, his description of movements was credible, and the accused’s suspicious conduct further supported the prosecution. The Court held that no mandatory rule requires corroboration when the sole witness is trustworthy, and the High Court’s order was indefensible. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, and restored the trial court’s conviction and life sentence.

Issues considered

Can a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC be sustained on the testimony of a single eyewitness who is a relative of the deceased without independent corroboration?
Whether the credibility of the sole witness, despite minor inconsistencies, is sufficient to uphold the conviction?
Whether the accused's failure to lodge an FIR and his suspicious conduct can be considered as circumstantial evidence supporting the prosecution?

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302

Subjects

murdersolitary witnesscorroborationwitness credibilitySection 302 IPCconvictionappealevidence law

Judgment

A STATE OF RAJAS THAN
•\-:
-"
v. r
~
OM PRAKASH t
JUNE 13, 2007 I'-

B [DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.]

Penal Code, I 860-s. 302-Conviction under, on basis of evidence of
prosecution witnesses-Set aside by High Court since the conviction could
'
not be recorded on the basis of evidence of solitary witness, that too when
c he was related to the deceased-Held: Evidence of witness was credible-
~

Certain improvements in the version of the witness by the accused is not of '--
consequence-Also the conduct of the accused was highly suspicious-Thus,
the order of High Court indefensible and is set aside.

D N lodged FIR that he heard that respondent-OP _killed his wife due to
quarrel. Investigation was carried out. Accused was arrested and the blood
stained knife and clothes were recovered. Prosecution witnesses were
examined. Trial Court relying on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
convicted and sentenced the accused under section 302 IPC. High Court set
aside the acquittal since the conviction could not be recorded on the basis of
E a solitary witnesses' evidence, that too when he is related to the deceased. ~

Hence the present appeal.

Appellant-State contended that the evidence of PW-1 clearly established
the commission of offence by the respondent; that it cannot be said that on
the basis of solitary witnesses' evidence conviction cannot be recorded and
F also that relatives' evidence needs corroboration; and that the accused did ;.
not explain as to what he was doing if he was present in the house after the
occurrence and why he did not file any report with the police.

Respondent-accused contended that the corroboration was necessary
because of contradictions in the version of PW 1, his conduct in not lodging
G
the FIR, improvements made during the evidence and his presence having not
been established by any acceptable evidence; and that motive was not ·
established.
~

Allowing the appeal, the Court
H 1000
ST ATE OF RAJASTHAN v. OM PRAKASH 1001
HELD: I. Order of High Court is indefensible and acquittal recorded A
by High Court is set aside and conviction and sentence by trial court is
restored. (Para 13111005-E, Fl

2.1. In the instant case the evidence of PW-1 was not shaken in spite of
incisive cross examination. High Court seems to have taken exception to the
credibility of his e\·idence on the ground that he had graphically described B
his movements with the accused and deceased. It is not clear as to how that
can be the ground to discard his evidence. He has only described the movements
during the relevant period of time from one place to another. For that it was
not necessary to have photogenic memory as the High Court seems to have
inferred. On the contrary these were mere description of the places which at C
the relevant time the PW-1 visited in the company of the accused and the
deceased. (Para 10) (1004-G; 1005-A)

2.2. Though counsel for the respondent tried to highlight certain
improvements in the version of the witness it is not of consequence. Irrelevant
details which do in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be D
levelled as omissions or contradictions. (Para 11) [1005-B]

Anil Phukan v. State of Assam (1993) 3 SCC 282, referred to.

2.3. Though the accused had given the katari blow, the witness did not
remember whether it was inflicted obliquely or straight. This by itself may E
not be sufficient to fasten the guilt on the accused, but this is certainly a
relevant factor. Additionally the conduct of the accused was highly suspicious.
If he subsequently came to the house after the incident, he has not explained
as to why he did not lodge any report with the police. That would have been
his normal conduct, considering the fact that undisputedly the deceased
breathed her last in the house itself. (Para 12) [1005-C, D, El F
State of Karnataka v. K. Gopalakrishna, [2005) 9 SCC 291, referred
to.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 722 of
2001. G

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 18.12.1998 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Joi:lhpifr in Crl. D.B. Appeal No. 454 of 1993.

Naveen Kumar Singh and Aruneswar Gupta for the Appellant.
H
1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 7 S.C.R. ·

A Pallav Shishodia. Hemant Shanna and Rambir Singh Yadav for the
Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. I. State of Rajasthan is in appeal against the
B judgment of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur. Respondent faced trial for
alleged commission of offence punishable under Section under Section 302
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'lPC') and sentence of imprisonment
for life by learned Additional Sessions Judge Nagaur. Accused filed an
appeal questioning his conviction and sentence imposed. The High Court by
C the impugned judgment allowed the appeal.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

First Information Report was lodged in the Police Station, Khinvsar on
14.5.1992 by one Nenuram, stating that at about l l.00 a.m., on that day, he
D heard that accused Om Prakash has killed Shivpyari, his wife (hereinafter
referred to as the 'deceased'), due to old quarrel. The investigation was
conducted. The accused was arrested and the prosecution commenced. The
prosecution examined 22 witnesses during the trial to prove its case alongwith
certain documents which were duly proved. On appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the
E conclusion that the accused had committed murder punishable under Section
302 IPC and, therefore, proceeded to punish him to suffer imprisonment for
life as aforesaid.

3. Trial Court placed reliance on the evidence of Om Prakash-PW-I and
found his evidence to be cogent and clear and recorded conviction and
F sentence as indicated above.

4. An appeal was filed before the High Court. Stand of the appellant was
that the order of conviction is unsustainable in law as conclusion of guilt is
not supported by the evidence on record. The entire conviction is rested
upon the sole testimony of an interested witness, who is younger brother of
G the deceased Shivpyari and the corroboration which is sought to be used for
supporting the testimony of PW l Om Prakash is the recovery of blood
stained knife and clothes at the instance of the accused. The delay caused
in lodging the First Information Report was not satisfactorily explained. The
explanation for the so-called delay does not over rule out the possibility of
H concoction of the entire case against the accused, the investigation is very
STATE OF RAJASTHANv. OM PRAKASH [PASAYAT.J.) 1003

faulty and the evidence, as is accepted by the learned trial Judge, is not A
sufficient to safely convict the accused of murder. The evidence admits of
reasonable explanation which can exclude the participation of the accused
and in such circumstances, conviction on such evidence is not legal and
proper. Police visited the scene of occurrence immediately on the receipt of
the First Infonnation Report and had seen the premises. The accused was B
arrested thereafter and then, it is alleged that at his instance, the blood
stained knife and clothes were recovered. Possibility of planation of these
articles cannot be over ruled. The Investigating Officer has committed a
blunder in not connecting the knife to the accused. Assuming that the knife
and clothes were discovered at the instance of the accused, mere discovery
is not enough, unless the knife, connected to the accused, is shown to have C
· been used by him. The police could have ascertained the finger prints from
the knife and could have either proved or excluded use of the knife by the
accused. Failure on the part of the prosecution is a serious lacuna, which
raises a reasonable doubt regarding involvement of the accused and, therefore,
the evidence, as is accepted, is grossly in-sufficient for sustaining the order D
of conviction.

5. However, the primary stand was that on the basis of a solitary
witnesses' evidence, conviction cannot be recorded; more particularly, when
he is related to the deceased. The High Court accepted the plea and held
that in case of solitary witness, and when he is related to the deceased, E
corroboration is a must.

6. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the State submitted that
the evidence of PW- l clearly established the commission of offence by the
respondent. There is no reason why he would depose falsely against his
brother in law after his sister has lost her life. The decisions referred to by F
the High Court do not lay down any proposition of law to the effect that on
the basis of solitary witnesses' evidence conviction cannot be recorded and
also that relatives' evidence needs corroboration. Accused has not explained
as to what he was doing if he was present in the house after the occurrence.
He did not prefer to file any report with the police. His conduct is also G
rel~vant.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that
though the reasoning of the High Court is not elaborate, but the conclusion
is correct. According to him, the corroboration was necessary because of
contradictions in the version of PW 10, his conduct in not lodging the FIR, H
1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 7 S.C.R.

A improvements made during the evidence and his presence having not !:>een
established by any acceptable evidence. Finally it is submitted that motive
was not established. The High Court relied on the decision in Anil Phu/can
v. State of Assam [ 1993] 3 SCC 282 to hold that corroboration was necessary
because it was a case of single witness supporting the prosecution version
B and the witnesses' relationship.

8. The High Court seems to have misread this Court's observation. The
relevant observations read as follows:

"Conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye-witness
and there is no rule of law or evidence which says to the contrary
c provided the sole witness passes the test of reliability. So long as the
single eyewitness is wholly reliable witness the courts have no
difficulty in basing conviction on his testimony alone. However,
where the single eyewitness is not found to be a wholly reliable
witness, in the scene that there are some circumstances which may
D show that he could have an interest in the prosecution, then the
courts generally insist upon some independent corroboration of his
testimony, in material particulars before recording conviction. It is
only when the courts find that the single eyewitness is a wholly
unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in toto and no
amount of corroboration can cure that defect."
E
9. Again in the same decision it was noted as follows:

"Mere relationship of the witness with deceased is no ground to
discard his testimony, if it is otherwise found to be reliable and
trustworthy. In the normal course of events, a close relation would
F be the last person to spare the real assailant and implicate a false .,
f'
person. However, the possibility that he may also implicate some
innocent person along with the real assailant cannot be ruled out and,
therefore, as a matter of prudence, court should look for some
independent corroboration of his (estimony to decide about the
involvement of the other accused in the crime."
G
10. In the instant case the evidence of PW-1 was not shaken in spite
of incisive cross examination. The High Court seems to have taken exception
to the credibility of his evidence on the ground that he had graphically
described his movements with the accused and deceased. It is not clear as
H to how that can be the ground to discard his evidence. He has only described
I
4-

STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. OM PRAKASH (PASA YAT. J.) I005
the movements during the relevant period of time from one place to another. A
For that it was not necessary to have photogenic memory as the High Court
seems to have inferred. On the contrary these were mere description of the
places which at the relevant time the PW- I visited in the company of the
accused and the deceased.

11. At this juncture it is to be noted that though learned counsel for .B
the respondent tried to highlight certain improvements in the version of the
witness it is not of consequence. Irrelevant details which do in any way
corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be levelled as omissions or
contradictions. Interestingly in the cross examination of PW-1 the following
suggestions was given to the witnesses: C
"Today I do not remember whether the accused had inflicted the said
katari obliquely or straight."

12. The essence of the question appears to be that though the accused
had given the katari blow, the witness did not remember whether it was 'D
inflicted obliquely or straight. This by itself may not be sufficient to fasten
the guilt on the accused, but this is certainly a relevant factor. Additionally
the conduct of the accused was highly suspicious. If he subsequently came
to the house after the incident, he has not explained as to why he did not
lodge any report with the police. That would have been his normal conduct, '
considering the fact that undisputedly the deceased breathed her last in the E
house itself. The effect of the unnatural conduct of the accused in
strengthening the prosecution version has been highlighted by this Court in
State of Karnataka v. K. Gopalakrishna, [2005) 9 SCC 29 L

13. Looked at from any angle the High Court's order is indefensible and
is set aside. Acquittal as recorded by the High Court is set aside and :F
conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial court stand restored.

14. The appeal is allowed.

NJ. Appeal allowed.
G