Brief Facts
- The Appellants, Saheb (Accused No. 3) and Sitaram Pandurang Gabare (Accused No. 5), were convicted by Trial Court for the murder of Madhavrao Krishnaji Gabare.
- The prosecution’s case primarily relied on the testimony of Janakibai Gabare, the widow of the deceased, who saw the incident at night and identified the appellants as key perpetrators of the attack.
- A total of 22 individuals were charged with the offence, but only 9 were held guilty of offences u/s 148, 302 and 324, IPC, 1860 r/w Sec. 149 IPC.
- The conviction of the Appellants was sustained by the Bombay High Court, against which appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of India.
Issues
- Whether the testimony of the Sole Witness can be relied upon where inconsistencies in her statements were observed during her initial complaint and subsequent deposition before the Court?
- Whether benefit of doubt could be granted to the accused, having regard to the inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of sole witness, in absence of corroborating evidence?
Held
- The Apex Court acquitted the Appellants and allowed the appeal after a thorough examination of the evidence, primarily focused on the inconsistencies in the testimony of Janakibai (PW-1). Her deposition before the Trial Court significantly deviated from her original complaint recorded in the hospital after the incident. This raised serious concerns about her reliability as the sole eyewitness to the incident.
- The Court also highlighted the improbability of clear identification under the conditions of a power cut. Although Janakibai stated that there was sufficient moonlight, no other evidence supported her claim that it was bright enough to identify the attackers with certainty. The absence of clarity in the conditions under which the incident occurred led the Court to express doubt about the precision of her testimony.
- The Supreme Court also applied the well-established legal principle of “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” (false in one thing, false in everything). Although this principle is not a rule of law in India, it serves as a cautionary tool for courts to approach inconsistent testimony with suspicion. In the present case, the Court found it difficult to separate truth from falsehood in the testimony of Janakibai, which was riddled with contradictions.
Relevant Para Nos.
- 10, 12