Eknath Kisan Kumbharkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal no. 4220/2024

Brief Facts

The Appellant misled his pregnant daughter (deceased), into accompanying him in an autorickshaw to a Hospital. She had married inter-caste against the wishes of the Appellant.
Upon reaching the Hospital, the Appellant asked the driver (PW 2) to fetch a watchmen. However, when he returned he found the appellant strangulating Pramila with a rope/string. She was taken to hospital but declared dead.
The Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 316 and 364 of IPC. The High Court affirmed the same and confirmed the death penalty.
The Appellant filed the present appeal.

Issues

Whether conviction can be based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness?
Whether the death penalty awarded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court was justified under the “rarest of rare” doctrine?
Whether the mitigating circumstances—such as the appellant’s poverty, deprived background, lack of criminal antecedents, and serious health conditions—militate against the confirmation of the death sentence?

Held

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal and converted the sentence of death penalty to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission considering the mitigating factors such as the appellant’s poverty, deprived background, no criminal antecedents, and serious health issues. The findings of the Court are as under:

Conviction can be based on testimony of sole eye-witness

It is an established principle of law that conviction can be based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness. This Court in the case of VadiveluThevar and another Vs. State of Madras has held that the court can act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. Unless corroboration is insisted upon by a statute, courts should not insist on corroboration except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as a rule of prudence that corroboration should be insisted upon. Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary, would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and depends upon the judicial discretion. In other words, this Court has held that court would be considered with the quality and not the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or not proving a fact.

Minor discrepancies will not affect credibility of witness

There are bound to be some discrepancies between the narration of different witnesses, when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. It is further observed that corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefore should not render the evidence unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence.

Not the rarest of rare case as reformation is possible

It has been held after noticing the Constitution Benchcaseof Bachan Singh v State of Punjab, 1980 2 SCC 684that normal rule is that the offence of murder shall be punished with sentence of life imprisonment and the court can depart from that rule and impose the sentence of death only if there are special reasons for doing so and reasons are required to be recorded in writing before imposing the death sentence. It has been further held that the guidelines indicated in Bachan Singh’s case (Supra) will have to be applied to the facts of each individual case where the question of imposing of death sentence arises and after noticing the propositions emerging from the Bachan Singh’s case, it has been held that if it shocks the collective conscious of the society and fall in the category of ‘rarest of rare cases’, the imposition of death penalty may be warranted.
The doctrine of “rarest of rare” requires that death sentence should not be imposed only by taking into consideration the grave nature of crime but only if there is no possibility of reformation by a criminal.

Relevant Para No.