2002 (1) TMI 1345 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court doubts eyewitness credibility, acquits appellant due to lack of corroborative evidence

Hasan Murtza Versus State of Haryana

The Supreme Court overturned the lower courts' decision based on doubts regarding the credibility of the sole eyewitness (PW-4) and the lack of ... - Issues Involved:1. Credibility of the sole eyewitness (PW-4)2. Marital discord and its implications3. Reliability of evidence and contradictions4. Delay in recording the statement5. Lack of corroborative evidenceIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Credibility of the Sole Eyewitness (PW-4):The prosecution's case primarily rested on the testimony of PW-4, the mother of the deceased. The trial court and the High Court both relied heavily on her testimony despite the defense's argument that her statements contained contradictions and improvements. The trial court held that the minor discrepancies in her statements were expected and did not undermine her credibility. However, the Supreme Court found that the material improvements in her testimony were significant enough to cast doubt on her presence at the scene of the incident. The Court noted that PW-4's presence was highly improbable given that her son, who lived nearby, was not allowed to stay with the appellant and the deceased.2. Marital Discord and Its Implications:The relationship between the appellant and his deceased wife was strained, marked by frequent quarrels. The appellant's father had taken measures to safeguard the family's monetary interests by purchasing property and making investments in the name of the deceased. The courts below inferred that this marital discord and the appellant's exclusion from financial matters motivated the crime. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that marital discord alone could not be the basis for convicting the appellant without corroborative evidence.3. Reliability of Evidence and Contradictions:The defense pointed out several contradictions in PW-4's statements, such as discrepancies in her account of the appellant's character, her previous visits to the deceased's house, and the specifics of the incident. The trial court dismissed these contradictions as immaterial, but the Supreme Court found them significant enough to question the reliability of PW-4's testimony. The Court noted that these contradictions undermined the prosecution's case and made it unsafe to rely solely on her testimony for a conviction.4. Delay in Recording the Statement:The incident occurred around 7 p.m., but PW-4's statement was recorded only at 10 p.m. after her son informed the police. The Supreme Court found this delay suspicious, further questioning PW-4's presence at the scene. The Court noted that the delay contributed to the doubt about the credibility of her testimony and the overall prosecution case.5. Lack of Corroborative Evidence:The Supreme Court highlighted the absence of any other witnesses or corroborative evidence to support PW-4's account. Despite the presence of a tenant in the house and other nearby residents, no one else was cited to confirm the incident or PW-4's presence. Additionally, there was no physical evidence, such as burns or soot on the appellant, to link him to the crime scene. The Court found that the lack of corroborative evidence made it highly unsafe to convict the appellant based solely on PW-4's testimony.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts were not sustainable due to the significant doubts about the credibility of PW-4's testimony and the lack of corroborative evidence. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and directed that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith, unless required in any other case.