Quality of Eyewitness Testimony More Important Than Quantity: Supreme Court Upholds Life Imprisonment in Bihar Murder Case

Share:
airport fundamental Election Supreme v 300A Hindu Supreme Court Accident proceedings Medical property bail 196 506 Date of Decision: May 16, 2024 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. & Ors. Evidence Punjab Courts Act 144 CPC Compliance Court Father Timely Evidence Police Dowry condonatioMurder n Bail Bail Insurance Crime Evidence © All Rights Reserved @ LAWYER E NEWS *Disclaimer: Always compare with the original copy of judgment from the official website. punishment Technical criminal Homebuyers SARFAESI Judgment Telangana Bail Order murderWorkman Evidence National Property LPG Employee Report suit Suicide Notice Rape Electoral Bond Breach Article 142 bail duty custody skills legal 2025 Summoning recovery Constitutional Bail property nclt army validity police governance evidence teachers bail property jurisdiction evidence Possession amendment life land evidence causes degree absence

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India today upheld the life imprisonment sentence of Maheshwari Yadav and another appellant in a high-profile murder case from Bihar. The bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal, emphasized the importance of eyewitness testimony in criminal proceedings, stating that the “quality of eyewitness testimony is more important than quantity.”

This ruling comes in the case of Maheshwari Yadav & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (2023 INSC 1068), where the appellants were convicted for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34, indicating a shared common intention in the crime. The appellants had challenged their conviction and life imprisonment sentence, arguing that the eyewitness testimonies were unreliable and insufficient.

However, the Supreme Court, in its detailed judgment, laid stress on the credibility and quality of the eyewitnesses, who were mostly close relatives of the deceased. “After having made closer scrutiny, we find their versions are of a very sterling quality,” the bench observed, dismissing the appellants’ contention regarding the supposed unreliability of the eyewitness accounts.

The Court also addressed the issue of common intention under Section 34 of the IPC, affirming that the presence, active participation, and shared intention with the main accused at the crime scene were sufficient grounds for the appellants’ conviction. The judgment clarifies that vicarious liability under Section 34 does not necessarily require a prior conspiracy or pre-meditation and can be established during the occurrence.

This verdict is significant in highlighting the judicial perspective on the evaluation of eyewitness testimony in criminal cases, particularly when the witnesses are related to the victim. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on the quality of evidence over the quantity sets a precedent for future cases where the testimonies of a few credible witnesses may outweigh the absence of a larger number of witnesses.

As the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, it directed the appellants to surrender before the trial court within one month to undergo the remaining sentence. This ruling reinforces the Court’s commitment to upholding the integrity of the judicial process and ensuring justice in criminal cases.

Date of Decision: 13 December 2023

Maheshwari Yadav & Anr.  VS The State of Bihar   

Download Judgment

Share: