Pranav B Prem

The Supreme Court recently reiterated that the testimony of hostile witnesses does not have to be disregarded entirely, and parts of their statements that support the prosecution's case can still be relied upon. The judgment came in a criminal appeal against the Chhattisgarh High Court's decision upholding the conviction of two individuals under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A three-judge bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K.V. Viswanathan, and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh emphasized the importance of evaluating the entirety of a hostile witness's testimony. The Court observed: “Merely because the witnesses turn hostile does not necessarily mean that their evidence has to be thrown out entirely, and what is supportive of the prosecution certainly be used.”

Case Background

The case originated from an incident in 2001, where the appellants, along with their father (later acquitted), were accused of murdering a man named Suraj Sharma. The prosecution alleged that the appellants and their father attacked the victim with an axe and an iron pipe following a dispute over ganja. The victim succumbed to his injuries two days later. The Trial Court convicted all three accused under Section 302 IPC, but the High Court acquitted the father and upheld the convictions of the two appellants. Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court, contending that the evidence was insufficient to sustain their conviction.

Observations by the Supreme Court

Hostile Witnesses

One of the primary issues before the Court was the treatment of hostile witnesses. The complainant, Santosh Kumar Mandle (PW-6), who initially claimed to have witnessed the assault, turned hostile during the trial, denying any knowledge of the assailants. Despite this, the Court held that his testimony could not be dismissed entirely. It noted: “Even though PW-6 resiled from his previous incriminating statement, the FIR filed by him shortly after the incident and corroborated by other evidence remains relevant.” The Court held that hostile testimony should be examined in light of corroborative evidence and surrounding circumstances.

Sole Eyewitness and Delay in Recording Statement

The case heavily relied on the testimony of Lata Bai (PW-10), the victim’s mother and the sole eyewitness. The defense argued that her statement was recorded belatedly, five days after the incident, casting doubt on its reliability. However, the Court found her testimony credible, noting: “The presence of PW-10 at the crime scene was natural and corroborated by other evidence. Minor inconsistencies and embellishments in her testimony do not render her account unreliable.”

Non-Recovery of Weapon and Role of Police Witnesses

The appellants argued that the non-recovery of the weapon of crime weakened the prosecution’s case. The Court, however, reiterated that recovery of the weapon is not a sine qua non for conviction if there is reliable direct evidence. It also clarified that police witnesses involved in recovery proceedings should be treated at par with other witnesses unless their credibility is specifically impeached.

Principle of ‘Reasonable Doubt’

Reaffirming the principle of ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt,’ the Court observed: “Reasonable doubt must not be based on suppositional speculation but should be fair and based on reason and common sense.” The Court cited precedents, including Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra and Mekala Sivaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, to stress that exaggerated devotion to the benefit-of-doubt rule could undermine justice.

Decision

After a detailed evaluation of the evidence, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. However, it noted that the act did not meet the threshold for murder under Section 302 IPC. Instead, it fell under Part I of Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). Accordingly, the Court modified the conviction and reduced the sentence.

Key Takeaways

1. Hostile Witnesses: Testimonies of hostile witnesses can still hold evidentiary value if parts of their statements corroborate other prosecution evidence.

2. Eyewitness Testimony: Delays in recording statements are not necessarily fatal to the prosecution if adequately explained.

3. Non-Recovery of Weapon: The absence of weapon recovery does not invalidate direct, reliable evidence.

4. Reasonable Doubt: The principle must be applied judiciously to ensure justice for both the victim and the accused.

Cause Title: Goverdhan & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2025 INSC 47

Date: January-09-2025

Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K.V. Viswanathan, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh

[Read/Download order]