Natural eyewitness testimony and sentencing hearing requirements upheld conviction, but death sentence was replaced with life imprisonment.

A close relative who is the natural and sole eyewitness was held reliable where her account remained consistent, showed no motive for false implication, and was corroborated by immediate conduct evidence, medical evidence and recovery of weapons; the conviction for murder was upheld. The death sentence could not stand because the accused was not given a meaningful hearing on sentence under Section 235(2) CrPC, and the case did not meet the rarest of rare standard; capital punishment was set aside and life imprisonment substituted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction could be sustained on the testimony of the deceased's mother, a close relative and sole eye witness, and related corroborative evidence. (ii) Whether the death sentence could stand in the absence of an effective hearing on sentence and whether the case fell within the category of rarest of rare cases.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction could be sustained on the testimony of the deceased's mother, a close relative and sole eye witness, and related corroborative evidence.

Analysis: A close relative is not, by that fact alone, an interested witness. Such a witness is often the most natural witness and the last person expected to shield the real offender and falsely implicate an innocent person. No strong motive for false implication was shown. The mother's account of the assault remained intact in cross-examination. Her version was further supported by the conduct of the persons who reached the spot immediately after the , by the medical evidence, and by the seizure of weapons from the place of occurrence. The plea of inadmissible hearsay was rejected to the extent the evidence was used for the factum of the statement, conduct, and surrounding circumstances.

Conclusion: The conviction was rightly sustained and this issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the death sentence could stand in the absence of an effective hearing on sentence and whether the case fell within the category of rarest of rare cases.

Analysis: Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires a meaningful opportunity of hearing on sentence, and in serious cases the matter should ordinarily be adjourned to enable both sides to place relevant material before the court. The record showed that the sentencing process was not properly followed. The case also did not satisfy the threshold of rarest of rare cases for capital punishment. The sentence therefore could not be maintained.

Conclusion: The death sentence was set aside and substituted by life imprisonment, and this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The conviction for murder was upheld, but the capital sentence was not justified and was replaced with life imprisonment.

Ratio Decidendi: A close relative who is a natural witness is not unreliable merely because of relationship, and a death sentence cannot be sustained unless the accused is afforded an effective hearing on sentence and the case satisfies the rarest of rare standard.

---