New Delhi: The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence of a man in a 1998 murder case from Gujarat, ruling that a conviction can be sustained on the basis of the reliable testimony of even a solitary witness, even if several prosecution witnesses turn hostile during trial.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale dismissed the appeal filed by Mitesh alias T.V. Vaghela against the Gujarat High Court judgment that had affirmed his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
The trial court had sentenced him to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 500 for murder, and also awarded 10 days’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 250 under the Bombay Police Act.
According to the prosecution, the incident stemmed from a quarrel on December 11, 1998, after the accused allegedly threw a half-burnt cigarette into a bucket used by Somabhai Rabari for washing tea cups and saucers at his tea stall in Ahmedabad’s Khokara area. The next morning, Rabari was found injured near the stall.
His brother, complainant Ishwarbhai Rabari, told the court that when he reached the spot, the victim stated that Mitesh had stabbed him.
The prosecution said the same allegation was repeated by the victim while being taken to hospital in an autorickshaw, where he was later declared dead. During investigation, police also recovered the alleged weapon—a knife—based on information given by the accused.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the prosecution case was unreliable as several independent and panch witnesses had turned hostile, and that the alleged oral dying declaration could not be trusted. It was also argued that the deceased was not in a fit condition to make any statement due to his injuries.
Rejecting these claims, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. “A truthful and voluntary dying declaration, if found reliable, can by itself form the sole basis of conviction without corroboration,” the bench observed.
The Court noted that the complainant’s testimony regarding the oral dying declaration remained unshaken in cross-examination and was supported by prosecution witness Mukeshbhai Kuberbhai, an autorickshaw driver who claimed to have witnessed the assault.
The witness, the Court said, consistently stated that he saw the accused stab the victim during a quarrel and flee with the weapon.
“The witness has given a clear, cogent, and consistent account of the occurrence and has withstood the test of cross-examination without material contradiction,” the judgment said.
The Supreme Court further ruled that the mere fact that several witnesses turned hostile does not weaken the prosecution case if other reliable evidence establishes guilt.
“It is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is determinative. Even the testimony of a solitary witness, if wholly reliable, is sufficient to base a conviction,” the bench said.
Reiterating settled legal principles, the Court observed that Indian law does not require a specific number of witnesses for conviction and emphasised that courts must focus on the quality and credibility of evidence.
Finding no error in the concurrent findings of the trial court and the Gujarat High Court, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
However, noting that the appellant had already undergone a substantial part of his sentence, the Court granted him liberty to seek remission in accordance with the applicable policy.
With IANS inputs