Case Title: Khema Alias Khem Chandra Etc. (S) v. State Of Uttar Pradesh (S)
The Supreme Court noted that when an ocular testimony falls into the category of "neither entirely untrustworthy nor wholly reliable", some verification is required. In the present case, the accused was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 read with Section 149, Section 307 read with Section 149 and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court confirmed the conviction while dismissing the appeal.
In the instant case, the issue raised before the Supreme Court was:
If an inconsistent testimony of the ocular witness can be the basis for convicting the accused?
With regard to this issue, the Honorable Court stated that while PW2 was a wounded eyewitness, there are significant discrepancies and contradictions between the timing of his injuries and the time he was evaluated by a doctor. As a result, the court decided to allow the appeal. Dr Anoop Kumar (PW6) has expressed a variety of opinions during his testimony and his evidence substantially refuted those of PW1 and PW2.
The court pointed out that oral testimony was divided into three categories, as demonstrated in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras: (1) Completely reliable (2) Totally untrustworthy (3) Neither completely trustworthy nor completely unreliable. The bench determined that the visual testimony, in this case, fell within the third category, which calls for corroborating evidence. The prosecution did not examine any of the available independent witnesses. The court decided that in this case, the appellants should be given the benefit of the doubt.
The court categorically said that,
“…….Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely: (1) Wholly reliable, (2) Wholly unreliable, (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way — it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial.…”
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the appellants were given the benefit of doubt.