1957 (4) TMI 84 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Reliability of the sole witness (first witness).
2. Corroboration of the testimony of the first witness.
3. The appropriateness of the conviction and sentence based on the sole testimony.
4. Consideration of extenuating circumstances for sentencing.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Reliability of the Sole Witness (First Witness):
The Supreme Court examined the reliability of the first witness, who was the widow of the deceased and the sole eyewitness to the crime. The appellants challenged her testimony, arguing that it was not free from blemish. The Court noted that her testimony had been consistent throughout the trial and that any discrepancies were due to recording errors by the committing Magistrate. The Court found that the first witness had consistently stated that the second appellant (A-2) inflicted the fatal injuries while the first appellant (A-1) aided and abetted him. The Court emphasized that her testimony was corroborated by the immediate lodging of the first information report and was consistent with the medical evidence.

2. Corroboration of the Testimony of the First Witness:
The appellants argued that the conviction should not be based solely on the testimony of the first witness. The Court referred to precedents, including the case of Mohamed Sugal Esa Mamasan Rer Alalah v. The King, where the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that corroboration is not a legal necessity unless required by statute. The Court also discussed the case of Vemireddy Satyanarayan Reddy and three others v. The State of Hyderabad, where corroboration was sought due to the peculiar circumstances of the case. The Court concluded that corroboration is not mandatory unless the nature of the testimony itself requires it as a rule of prudence.

3. The Appropriateness of the Conviction and Sentence Based on the Sole Testimony:
The Supreme Court held that the conviction based on the sole testimony of the first witness was justified. The Court emphasized that Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act states that "no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact." The Court highlighted that the quality of evidence, not the quantity, is paramount. The Court found the first witness's testimony to be wholly reliable and free from suspicion of interestedness, incompetence, or subornation. The Court rejected the argument that plurality of witnesses is necessary for conviction.

4. Consideration of Extenuating Circumstances for Sentencing:
The appellants argued for a lesser sentence, but the Court found no extenuating circumstances to mitigate the severity of the crime. The Court noted that the murder was cold-blooded and premeditated, as the accused returned to ensure the victim's death. The Court held that the nature of proof bears upon the question of conviction, not the character of the punishment. The Court affirmed the death sentence for the first appellant, stating that the punishment was appropriate given the gravity of the crime. For the second appellant, the Court upheld the High Court's decision to reduce the sentence to five years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the conviction and sentences. The Court emphasized the reliability of the first witness's testimony, the lack of necessity for corroboration, and the appropriateness of the sentences given the circumstances of the case. The judgment affirmed the principle that the quality of evidence is more important than the quantity and that a single credible witness can suffice for a conviction.