Supreme Court Quashes Convictions Where Sole Prosecution Witness Was Partly Unreliable and Uncorroborated

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran heard appeals by two accused challenging the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench order dated 17 July 2012 which had dismissed their criminal appeals and confirmed convictions for offences including murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The appeals arose from a trial court judgment of 24 October 2007 that convicted ten persons for an attack in December 2005; the High Court acquitted six, and confirmed convictions of Rajkumar and Mehatar (with another appellant having died during proceedings).

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashed the judgments and orders of conviction and sentence of the trial court and the High Court, and acquitted the appellants. The Court held that the prosecution case mainly rested on the testimony of a single, interested witness — PW‑1 Sindhubai — whose evidence the High Court itself had found to be partly reliable and partly unreliable; in those circumstances the conviction could not be sustained in the absence of independent corroboration. The Court recorded that corroborative witnesses such as Sitabai, Tekaram Rahagadale and the village Sarpanch were not examined and that PW‑4 (Police Patil Narendra Katre) had turned hostile. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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 directed discharge of bail bonds for Mehatar and ordered immediate release of Rajkumar if his custody was not required in any other case.

Background

The prosecution alleged that on 20 December 2005 a group of persons entered the home of PW‑1’s family, violently assaulted her husband and brother‑in‑law Shyamrao, and caused fatal injuries; Rajkumar was accused of assaulting the deceased with an axe. PW‑1, wife and sister‑in‑law of the deceased, narrated the incident and an FIR was registered on her oral report. The trial court convicted all ten accused for offences under Sections 147, 148, 452 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced three of them, including Rajkumar and Mehatar, to life imprisonment. On appeal the High Court acquitted six accused after scrutinising PW‑1’s testimony but upheld conviction of the three remaining accused.

The Supreme Court examined the quality of PW‑1’s evidence in the light of settled law that a conviction could rest on the testimony of a single witness only if it was found to be wholly reliable; where such testimony was partly unreliable, corroboration in material particulars was required. The High Court had itself recorded that “Sindhubai at the relevant time had locked the door of house of Sitabai from inside and had concealed herself beneath a cot,” and had relied on omissions in the FIR and witness statements to acquit certain accused. The Supreme Court noted that key witnesses who could have furnished corroboration were not produced, that the Police Patil’s statement did not support the prosecution in material respects and that the FIR and station diary entries presented timing inconsistencies. The Court applied the principle from Vedivelu Thevar and related precedents on the weight to be given to lone witnesses and concluded that, absent corroboration, the convictions were unsustainable. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the appellants were acquitted; interim directions included discharge of bail bonds for Mehatar and release directions for Rajkumar if not otherwise detained.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 126 & 127 of 2014 (2025 INSC 216) Case Title: Mehatar v. State of Maharashtra (with Criminal Appeal No.126 of 2014) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Sanjay Jain, learned counsel for the appellants For the Respondent(s): Shri Adarsh Dubey, learned counsel for the State