Corroboration To Testimony That Is Partly Reliable & Partly Unreliable Should Be Insisted Upon: SC Quashes Murder Conviction
The Supreme Court acquitted the Appellants holding that the testimony of the sole eyewitness was largely unreliable.
The Supreme Court has quashed the conviction in a murder case while holding that the corroboration of the testimony which falls in the category of being “partly reliable and partly unreliable” should be insisted upon.
The Court acquitted the Appellants who were convicted for offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC by the Trial Court. The Court held that the testimony of the sole eyewitness was “largely unreliable” and lacked corroboration.
A Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran held, “In the present case, even accepting the view of the High Court that Sindhubai would fall within the category of partly reliable and partly unreliable, in such an event the High Court should have insisted upon some corroboration to the testimony of such a witness. However, the High Court has itself found that the prosecution has not examined Sitabai and as such, there was no corroboration to her testimony.”
Advocate Sanjay Jain represented the Appellant, while Advocate Adarsh Dubey appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The complainant, the sole eye witness, alleged that the Appellants, along with others, assaulted and murdered her husband and brother-in-law due to prior enmity. The Trial Court convicted ten accused based on the complainant’s testimony, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The Bombay High Court later acquitted six accused while upholding the conviction of the Appellants. The Appellants then approached the Supreme Court.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted that the prosecution primarily relied on the testimony of the complainant. The High Court had already found her testimony to be “partly reliable and partly unreliable,” acquitting some accused based on inconsistencies in her account. The Supreme Court reiterated that when a witness’s testimony is partly reliable, corroboration is required to uphold a conviction.
The Bench noted that there was no corroboration to the testimony of the complainant from any other witness. “The difficulty arises when a witness is found to be partly reliable and partly unreliable. In such a case, the conviction could not be maintained unless there is some corroboration to the testimony of such a witness,” it explained.
“We are, therefore, of the considered view that the High Court was not justified in resting the conviction of the appellants herein solely on the basis of the evidence of Sindhubai (PW-1) when her testimony was found to be largely unreliable. For doing so, the High Court should have insisted upon some corroboration,” the Court held.
Consequently, the Court held, “In our considered view, there is no corroboration to the testimony of Sindhubai (PW-1). As such, the conviction would not be sustainable. The appellants would be entitled to benefit of doubt.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Mehatar v. The State Of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 216)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Sanjay Jain, Saakshi Singh Rawat, Sunny Sachin Rawat and Ruchika Bhan; AOR Sudarshan Singh Rawat
Respondents: Advocate Adarsh Dubey, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla, Aditya Krishna and Preet S. Phanse; AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande
