Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Justice Neela Gokhale, Bombay High Court
Injury To Witness An Inbuilt Guarantee Of Their Presence At Scene Of Crime: Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction In Murder Case
|The Bombay High Court upheld the decision of the Special Court, which convicted the Appellants for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 120-B and 34 of the IPC.
The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of the Appellants in a murder case while remarking that injury to a witness is an inbuilt guarantee of their presence at the scene of the crime.
The Court upheld the decision of the Special Court, which convicted the Appellants for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 120-B and 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959.
A Division Bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Neela Gokhale held, “The law on the point in respect of value attached to the testimony of an injured witness is settled. Such testimony is accorded a special status in law. This is, as a consequence of the fact that, injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished, merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence.”
Advocate Nitin Sejpal appeared for the Appellants, while Additional Public Prosecutor PP Shinde represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Prosecution alleged that an assailant approached and fired a revolver, injuring the First Informant in the chest. Three more individuals joined the first assailant and opened fire on the victims, resulting in their deaths. A woman, who was passing by, also sustained a bullet injury.
The High Court, in its Judgment, focused on the evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly the testimony of the injured eye witness.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court relied on the decision in Abdul Sayed v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010), where the Supreme Court, while discussing the value to be attached to the testimony of an injured eye witness, affirmed the view that “the testimony of an eye witness should be viewed from broad angles. It should not be weighed in golden scales but with cogent standards. If an eye witness reproduces the incident in the same sequence as it registered in his mind, the testimony cannot be doubted as artificial on that core alone.”
“Section 293 of the Cr.P.C. provides that any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom this Section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as a evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code,” the Bench remarked.
The Court held, “The present case thus, primarily hinges on the testimony of four eye witnesses. Although the prosecution has fairly succeeded in establishing the guilt of the Appellants beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the recovery of the weapon, evidence of the medical Doctor, panchas, and the Investigating Officer, it is settled position of law that conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye witness and there is no rule of law or evidence which says to the contrary, provided that the said witness passes the test of reliability.”
“It is only when the Court finds that the eye witness is a wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in toto and no amount of corroboration can cure that defect. In the present case, there are four eye witnesses. Even if the testimony of PW/7, who became unconscious when she received bullet injury is discarded, the other three eye witnesses inspire confidence,” the Bench stated.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the judgment and order impugned herein is a well reasoned and legally sound decision. The evidence on record, when assessed in its entirety establishes the guilt of the Appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The observations of the trial Court regarding reliability of the eye witnesses testimony, the corroborative evidence, etc are compelling and do not warrant any interference…In view of the reasons stated above, the present Appeal fails and is accordingly, dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the Appellants for the offences as stated aforesaid stands confirmed.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Mohd. Ali Jaan Mohd Shaikh & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:17018-DB)
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocates Nitin Sejpal and Akshata Desai
Respondents: APP P.P. Shinde; SPP Pradip D. Gharat