The Supreme Court underscores the need for careful scrutiny when examining the testimony of the sole eyewitness who also happens to be the complainant

Case: CHHOTE LAL vs. ROHTASH

Coram: Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal

Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2490 OF 2014

Court Observation: “It may not be out of context to mention that the appellant/complainant, a sole eyewitness, happens to be the most interested witness being the father of the deceased and having long enmity with the group to which the accused persons belong, therefore, his testimony was to be examined with great caution and the High Court was justified in doing so and in doubting it so as to uphold the conviction on his solitary evidence.”

“The statement that he could not do so on account of the threats extended by the accused persons appears to be a bald statement as no one in a situation where his son is being assaulted and carried away would remain a mere spectator.”

“However, the conviction has to be based on the evidence which proves the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution in this case has failed to prove the guilt of the accused both by circumstantial evidence and by means of evidence of the eyewitness. In respect of circumstantial evidence, the chain of events is not complete whereas the presence of eyewitness is also doubtful.”

Previous Posts

Efficient judicial functioning is jeopardized when parties are permitted to backtrack from their commitments without providing any justifiable reasons, as emphasized by the Delhi High Court

J&K High Court stresses that Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be interpreted in line with the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21

Delhi High Court Orders Litigant Claiming Ownership of Territory Between Ganga and Yamuna from Agra to Gurugram to Pay ₹10,000 in Costs

Calcutta High Court states that arranging groups in the tender process with clear distinctions is acceptable; it shouldn’t be criticized just because it may not be convenient for all bidders

In cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must independently prove the ‘Pendency of Official Favour,’ without relying on external support: AP High Court

Keywords

The Supreme Court underscores the need for careful scrutiny