Conviction Can Be Sustained Solely on Truly Reliable Testimony of a Solitary Eyewitness and Oral Dying Declarations.

The Appellant was convicted by the Additional City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act for the murder of Somabhai Rabari

On 11.12.1998, an altercation occurred between the Appellant and the deceased over a half-burnt cigarette

The following morning, the complainant (PW-1) found the deceased injured near his tea stall

The deceased allegedly gave two oral dying declarations naming the Appellant as the assailant—one at the scene and another in the auto-rickshaw en route to the hospital

The High Court of Gujarat dismissed the appeal against conviction

The Appellant challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court, citing hostile witnesses and the alleged medical incapacity of the deceased to make a statement

1. Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction based on the available evidence

The Court applied Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) concerning murder and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act

In evaluating evidence, the Court relied on the principle that the quality of evidence prevails over quantity (plurality of witnesses), as codified in Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

truthful and voluntary dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction (P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka and State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav)

reliability of a solitary witness of sterling quality (Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra and Bhimappa Chandappa v. State of Karnataka)

The Court found that the prosecution successfully established motive (mens rea) through PW-1’s testimony regarding the cigarette-related quarrel and the Appellant's subsequent threat

Regarding actus reus, the Court relied heavily on the testimony of PW-12, an eye-witness whose version remained unshaken despite rigorous cross-examination

The Court dismissed the defense's argument regarding the deceased's unconsciousness, noting that no medical evidence or suggestions were put to doctors to prove the deceased was incapable of making an oral dying declaration immediately after the assault

The Court clarified that the hostility of several panch and eye-witnesses did not weaken the case, as the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-12 were of "sterling quality" and remained consistent regarding the identity of the assailant and the weapon used

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the life imprisonment sentence. However, in light of the substantial period already served, the Court granted the Appellant liberty to apply for remission under extant state policies