The Supreme Court has upheld the life sentence awarded to four persons in a murder case based on the testimony of a solitary eyewitness, observing that in matters related to criminal trials, the quality of witnesses was more important than quantity.
The observation was made by the Division Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Vikram Nath in the murder case of family members of one Pinky Anand in 2007.
As per the case details, the accused were close relatives and neighbours, who were alleged to have shared enmity against Anand’s father.
They allegedly murdered the family to gain property and settle scores. Anand witnessed the incident. She and her sister Rashmi survived the fatal incident with injuries.
Rejecting the contention made by the accused that the prosecution did not examine two witnesses in the case, the Apex Court observed that such non-examination did not have any material bearing on the case.
The Bench noted that it was the discretion of the prosecution to lead as much evidence as was necessary for proving the charge.
The accused were awarded death sentence by the trial court, which found them guilty of murder and being part of an unlawful assembly, as well as other allied offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Arms Act, 1959.
The accused moved the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the conviction, but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment.
The accused then moved the Supreme Court. Besides, an appeal was filed in the Apex Court by the State, challenging the reduction of sentence by the High Court from death sentence to life imprisonment.
The Counsel for the accused contended before the top court of the country that the entire case was based on the evidence of a solitary witness (Pinky Anand), whose testimony was not reliable, since she was related to the deceased and also bore enmity against the accused.
He further said that no other evidence existed to corroborate the testimony of the witness.
The Counsel argued that the sisters did not initially disclose the names of the accused.
However, the Apex Court pointed out that this was because the accused were present with the sisters at the time. Hence, they ‘wisely’ did not speak out anything in presence of the accused, the Bench remarked.
It further took note of the fact that police were informed of the actual events as soon as the statement of the sisters were later taken in the hospital.
The Apex Court concluded that Anand was a ‘fully reliable’ witness and had stated the things in their natural course”.
The Bench also rejected the State’s appeal to enhance the sentence awarded to the accused on the grounds that the High Court had given ‘sound’ and ‘cogent’ reasons for commuting the death sentence into life imprisonment.
(Case title: Ajai Alias Ajju and Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh)