S.134 Evidence Act - Single eyewitness testimony can be used to convict if it's credible - Madhya Pradesh HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that, in exceptional cases, a single eyewitness' testimony can serve as the foundation for a conviction.

The statement of a single eye witness might serve as the foundation for conviction, according to section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, the division bench composed of Justices Sujoy Paul and Prakash Chandra Gupta stated. In theory, there is no justification to discount this claim made by an experienced government attorney. The entire judicial process surrounding this matter, however, demonstrates how important a good eyewitness must be. It is risky to record or confirm conviction based on such a statement if eyebrows can be raised.

The Appellant was charged with killing a woman and ultimately found guilty of the crime, according to the case's facts. His confession pursuant to Section 27 of the Evidence Act, along with the Complainant's testimony, served as the main foundation for his conviction. The sole eyewitness in the case was the complainant, who was the deceased's sister. The Appellant sought to appeal his Section 302 IPC conviction to the Court because he was upset about it.

The Appellant claimed that the case's single eyewitness testimony was tainted by inconsistency. It was further noted that the testimony of numerous additional witnesses did not support the prosecution's version of events. The Appellant further disputed the veracity of his statement in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, claiming that there was no documentation to support the claim that at the time of discovery, he was in police custody, making the damning evidence against him inadmissible in court.

The State, on the other hand, countered that the eyewitness' testimony was trustworthy and consistent with the account put forth by the prosecution. Additionally, it was claimed that the appellant's statement was flawless and in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The High Court determined that the arguments advanced by the Appellant had substance after carefully examining the parties' pleadings and the trial court's record. Examining the Complainant's statement carefully, the Court noted that her testimony didn't bolster its trust. Despite the fact that she was the only eyewitness in the case, the court found that her testimony was insufficient to support the appellant's guilt.

The Court then focused on the Appellant's statement made pursuant to Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It noted that the prosecution had utterly failed to prove that the appellant was in detention when damning evidence against him was discovered. The Court stated that as a result, it was unable to affirm the accused's conviction due to a flawed recovery. Since the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the appellant was in custody at the time the "gamchha" was recovered, the recovery cannot be deemed to be in accordance with Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. At the risk of repetition, the lone eyewitness Kavita (PW-1) did not testify that the appellant was wearing any "gamchha" when she saw him leave her house. The presence of blood stains on "gamchha" is of little consequence because recovery of the object cannot be demonstrated. It is important to emphasise that even the appellant's arrest location is very speculative. The arrest memo indicates that the appellant was taken into custody in Amarwara, contrary to the testimony of Kavita (PW-1) and S.S. Rajput, Sub Inspector (PW-5) who claimed that ASI Tiwari took the appellant into custody in Sagar.

Given the aforementioned observations, the Court decided to grant the appellant the benefit of the doubt and exonerate him. His conviction was therefore overturned as a result of the appeal being accepted.

MANISH

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH