Delhi HC Acquits Hotel Worker Convicted Of Killing Colleague, Finding Sole Eyewitness Unreliable And Ice-Pick Evidence Doubtful

The appellant challenged his conviction under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, arising from an incident at a hotel function on 23 April 2000.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant attacked Bhagmal Singh (PW-1) and then fatally stabbed Suresh Chand with an ice-pick.

The Trial Court relied principally on PW-1’s evidence, together with other witness testimony and medical evidence, and convicted the appellant.

The appellant disputed the reliability of the eyewitness account and the alleged recovery of the weapon, confession, and dying declaration.

On appeal, the High Court assessed whether the prosecution evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Sections 302 and 323 IPC prescribe punishment for murder and voluntarily causing hurt, respectively; the prosecution must prove the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt.

Under Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no particular number of witnesses is required, but a conviction may rest on a single witness only where the testimony is reliable; where it is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, the court must seek corroboration in material particulars.

The Court applied Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 13, and Joseph v. State of Kerala, (2003) 1 SCC 465, on scrutiny of sole-witness testimony.

It also applied the principles that an extra-judicial confession is a weak form of evidence requiring careful scrutiny, and that a dying declaration must inspire confidence and be rejected or corroborated if suspicious; it considered Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 16 SCC 510, and Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1060.

The Court further considered the medical and reliability principles discussed in Sabbita Satyavathi v. Bandala Srinivasarao, (2004) 10 SCC 620.

The Court found PW-1’s account insufficiently reliable on its own.

Although he described a crowded function, he said that no guest or other worker witnessed the incident or came to assist, a circumstance the Court regarded as undermining the naturalness of his account.

PW-3’s evidence concerning the appellant’s involvement derived from PW-1, while PW-6 did not see the appellant holding the ice-pick and said an unidentified person had handed it to him; the appellant’s alleged confession to PW-7 was not mentioned by PW-6.

The alleged dying declaration was also doubtful: other witnesses did not place PW-7 in the vehicle, and the medical evidence concerning injury to the heart and lung cast doubt on the deceased’s capacity to make the statement.

Finally, the absence of an entry mark on the deceased’s shirt, the absence of blood on the ice-pick, and uncertainty over the weapon’s chain of custody weakened the prosecution’s corroborative evidence.

Taken cumulatively, these deficiencies left reasonable doubt about the appellant’s guilt.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction dated 30 July 2004 and sentence dated 31 July 2004, and acquitted the appellant.

His bail bonds and surety were directed to stand discharged 60 days from the judgment.