Supreme Court of India
STATE OF M.P.versusLAAKHAN @ LAKHAN
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 569
- Decided
- 21 April 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The High Court was not justified in acquitting; the trial court’s conviction based on the reliable informant’s testimony stands.
Summary
The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed a High Court order acquitting Lakhhan, who had been convicted by a trial court for the murder of a nine‑month‑old child under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The trial court relied on the testimony of an informant (PW‑1), deeming it cogent and credible. The High Court set aside the conviction, finding the informant’s evidence unreliable, especially due to a discrepancy in the time of death (2‑3 a.m. vs. 7 p.m.) and the fact that the accused was not apprehended immediately. The Supreme Court held that the FIR’s authenticity was not contested and that a single, reliable witness can suffice for conviction; the time discrepancy did not invalidate the informant’s testimony. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s acquittal, restored the trial court’s judgment, and ordered the respondent to surrender for sentencing.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused on the ground that the informant's testimony was not fully reliable.
- Whether a discrepancy in the time of occurrence undermines the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
- Whether the testimony of a single witness, if deemed reliable, is sufficient for conviction under the Evidence Act.
Legislation cited
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 134
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34
Subjects
murderSection 302 IPCSection 34 IPCwitness reliabilitysingle witness convictionFIR authenticityEvidence Act Section 134appellate reviewcriminal law
Judgment
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 47
STATE OF M.P. A
v.
LMKHAN @ LAKHAN
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 177-178 of 2005)
APRIL 21, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
c
Section 302 rlw 34 - Murder - Trial Court convicting the
accused relying on the evidence of informant which according
to it was cogent and reliable - High Court found the evidence
not fully reliable and acquitted the accused - On appeal,
;.
Held: No question was raised about the authenticity of the FIR D
- High Court not justified in directing acquittal - Judgment of
High· Court set aside and that of trial court restored.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 177-178 of 2005.
E
From the Judgment & Order dated 25.04.2003 of the High
Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur, Bench
~·
Gwalior, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 137 & 248 of 1995.
Vibha Dutta Makhija for the Appellant.
F
Sanjeev Malhotra for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is
,. to the Judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh
G
High Court, Gwalior Bench directing acquittal of the respondent
who faced trial along with another named Kalkai who acquitted
l by learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind. The
47 H
48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.
A respondent was, however, found guilty of offence punishable
under section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code,
1860 (in short 'IPC'). A nine month old child named Gautam
was the victim. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows :
A per F.l.R. (Ex. P/12) on 3.3.1993 Sheeladevi
B
(PW11) with her nine months old son, the deceased, the
respondent and one Kalkai had reached Mihona at 7.00
c
P.M. They proceeded on foot to village Banthari where
respondent resided. On the way Kalkai took the child from
Sheeladevi (PW-11) and gave him to the respondent.
Kalkai told that respondent would keep Sheeladevi (Pw-
11) with him but not the child. Sheeladevi (Pw-11) insisted
'
-
that child be given back to her. She does not want to live
with the respondent. Thereafter, behind Balaji temple in
Arhar field Kalkai caught the legs of the deceased,c;hild.
D Respondent throttled his neck till death of the child.
Sheeladevi (PW-11) shouted. Ranjit Singh (PW-12)
Rajendra Singh (PW-3), Pradumn Singh (PW-7) and Devi
Dayal (PW-4) came from the temple. Respondent and
Kalkai were burying the deadbody. Seeing these
E witnesses both the respondent and Kalkai filed way.
Sheeladevi (Pw-11) rushed to police station Mihone and
lidged FIR (Ex. P/12) within 1.5 hours. Investigation was
undertaken.
2. After investigation charge sheet was filed. Charges
F-
were framed. Since the accused persons pleaded innocence,
trial was held. The trial court relied on the evidence of the
informant. Two other witnesses were examined to prove the
complexity of the accused persons. They resiled from the
statement made during investigation. The trial court held
G
version of PW1, the informant, to be cogent and credible and ~ ,.,
recorded conviction so far as the respondent is concerned. In
appeal, the High Court found that the evidence of PW1 was not
fully reliable and there was a great difference as regards the
time of occurrence. PW11 stated that the occurrence took
H
STATE OF M.P. v. LAAKHAN@ LAKHAN 49
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
place between 2 to 3 A.M., while the prosecution version was A
that the same was around 7.00 P.M. The High Court concluded
that even an illiterate rustic woman can differentiate between
7.00 P.M. in the evening woman can differentiate between 7.00
P.M. in the evening and 2 to 3 AM. in the morning. Additionally,
it was held that the accused was not caught and was later on B
arrested. Accordingly acquittal was directed.
3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the FIR was lodged at 9.00 P.M. So
t~e death could not have taken place between 2 to 3 A.M. The
High Court has lost sight of the traumatic experience of a rustic,·
c
illiterate woman. She had come a long way seeking shelter
from a relative. It is the prosecution version that the accused
Laakhan had agreed to keep PW-11 with him. There was a
difference as to whether child was to be adopted and
maintained by the accused. This appears to be the main cause D
for which the child was snatched and done to death.
4 ..Several important factors need to be noted. Firstly there
is no dispute regarding lodging of FIR at about 9.00 P.M. The
First information report itself noted that the date and time of E
occurrence was on 3.3.1993 at about 7.30 P.M. when the
information was received at the police station and the 0. 0.
Number 101 was made at 9.00 P.M. In the recital PW11 has
c• categorically stated that the occurrence took place around 7.30
P.M. The statement recorded in court is to the effect that the F
first information report was accepted and lodged by her at the
time indicated. It has been held by the High Court that the
prosecution version vests fundamentally on the evidence of a
single witness. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other
hand submitted that it is not only the time factor which had
G
weighed with the High Court to direct acquittal. Looking at the
y
scenario vis-a-vis the co-accused the High Court has come to
~ conclusion that PW1 was 11ot a wholly reliable witness. There
was change of spot of occurrence. It is further submitted that
this Court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal
H
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.
A which deals with all the relevant aspects.
5. The background in which the incident allegedly took
place cannot be lost sight of. Here the evidence of PW1 has
to be tested in the light of the background facts. She was
running from pillar to post to find a shelter for herself and her
8
child who was nine months old. Some relatives had taken pity
on her and had tried to find out a sympathetic person who would
give shelter to her and her child. The evidence of PW11 has
no deficiency except the time factor. There is no other
C discrepancy in her evidence to warrant rejection of her
evidence. Even the evidence of a solitary witness can be
sufficient to record conviction if the same is wholly reliable. No
particular number of witnesses is necessary to prove any fact,
as statutorily provided in Section 134 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 (in short the 'Evidence Act'). It is the quality and not
D the quantity of the evidence that matters. The court cannot take
a closed view in such matters. It is to be noted that PW11 was
a rustic illiterate lady before whose eyes her only child was
killed. There is no particular reason as to why she would falsely
implicate the accused. It the accused's version is accepted, she
E was a total stranger to her. Then the question arises why would
such a person falsely implicate the accused. When the factum
of death has been recorded in the FIR and the time given is
around 7.00 P.M. the question of the incident taking place in
the morning hours of the next day does not arise. As is rightly
F contended by learned counsel for the appellant, there has been
no question raised about the authenticity of the FIR. That being
so, the High Court was not justified in directing acquittal The
judgment of the High Court is accordingly set aside and that of
the trial court is restored. The respondent shall surrender to
G custody forthwith to serve the remainder of sentence.
6. The appeals are allowed.
G.N. Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search