2019 (8) TMI 1891 - SC - Indian Laws

Mob assault - Appellants submits that once the other Accused have been acquitted, the two Appellants alone cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code - Can the evidence of a solitary doubtful eye witness be sufficient for conviction? - HELD THAT - Conviction on basis of a solitary eye witness is undoubtedly sustainable if there is reliable evidence cogent and convincing in nature along with surrounding circumstances. The evidence of a solitary witness will therefore call for heightened scrutiny. But in the nature of materials available against the Appellants on the sole testimony of PW-1 which is common to all the Accused in so far as assault is concerned, we do not consider it safe to accept her statement as a gospel truth in the facts and circumstances of the present case. If PW-1 could have gone to the police station alone with her sister-in-law at an unearthly hour, there had to be an explanation why it was delayed by six hours. Given the harsh realities of times, it is found virtually impossible that two women folk went to a police station at that hour of the night unaccompanied by any male. These become crucial in the background of the pre-existing enmity between the parties leading to earlier police cases between them also. The possibility of false implication therefore cannot be ruled out completely in the facts of the case. The High Court concluded that the Appellants alone were the assailants of the deceased. Ishwar is also stated to have assaulted with a lathi capable of causing lacerated wounds - The susceptibility of eleven injuries, including incised wounds, by two Accused is considered highly improbable. The order of the High Court found to be unsustainable and accordingly set it aside - The Appellants are acquitted - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Conviction under Sections 302, 149, and 148 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on evidence and common intention, credibility of eyewitness testimony, reliability of witness accounts, presence of previous animosity, and sufficiency of evidence for conviction.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Conviction under Sections 302, 149, and 148 IPC
The appeal challenges the conviction of the two Appellants under Sections 302, 149, and 148 of the IPC. The defense argues that since other Accused were acquitted, the conviction of the two Appellants with the aid of Section 149 is erroneous. It is contended that there was no charge framed under Section 34, and there is a lack of evidence of common intention among the Accused. The defense suggests that the case could, at most, warrant a conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC. Reference is made to legal precedents to support this argument.

Issue 2: Credibility of Eyewitness Testimony
The State contends that the eyewitnesses, PW-1 and PW-8, identified the Appellants as the assailants. The defense questions the credibility of these witnesses, highlighting inconsistencies and improbabilities in their testimonies. The relationship between PW-1 and the deceased is emphasized, suggesting bias. The presence of animosity and previous altercations between the parties is noted to provide context to the incident.

Issue 3: Sufficiency of Evidence for Conviction
The Court examines the evidence on record, including the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased, the presence of other witnesses, and the circumstances of the incident. The Court observes discrepancies in the witness accounts and raises doubts about the reliability of the sole eyewitness testimony provided by PW-1. The Court questions the feasibility of identifying the assailants in a mob assault scenario and highlights inconsistencies in the witness statements and actions following the incident.

Issue 4: Previous Animosity and False Implication
The Court considers the history of animosity between the parties and the potential for false implication in light of the strained relations. The Court emphasizes the need for caution when relying on the testimony of a solitary witness, especially when significant doubts exist regarding the witness's credibility and the circumstances surrounding the incident. The Court cites legal precedents to support the requirement of wholly reliable eyewitness testimony for conviction.

Conclusion:
Based on the analysis of the evidence and legal arguments presented, the Court finds the conviction of the Appellants unsustainable. The Court sets aside the High Court's order and acquits the Appellants, citing doubts about the reliability of the eyewitness account and the sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Appellants are directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case, with their bail bonds discharged if previously granted.