Introduction:

In a recent ruling on December 14, the Supreme Court, in the case of Chhote Lal vs. Rohtash, underscored the significance of caution while evaluating the testimony of an interested sole eyewitness. The case involved a long-standing enmity between two groups culminating in the murder of Kishan Sarup. While the trial court convicted six out of ten accused persons, the High Court overturned their conviction. The appeal before the Supreme Court challenged this acquittal.

Arguments of Both Sides:  

The appellant, the father of the deceased and the sole eyewitness, asserted that his testimony should be considered pivotal and unchallengeable, especially in cases where the trial court had convicted the accused. However, the Court deliberated on the caution necessary in assessing the testimony, considering the appellant’s inherent bias due to his familial relationship with the deceased and prolonged enmity with the accused group.

Court’s Judgement:  

The Supreme Court emphasized the need for meticulous examination of the eyewitness’s testimony. Despite being the sole eyewitness, the appellant hadn’t witnessed the actual killing of his son. The Court highlighted inconsistencies in his statements, questioning his failure to intervene during the assault on his son and casting doubt on the sequence of events described by him. Moreover, discrepancies between the appellant’s statement and the postmortem report and recovered evidence weakened the case against the accused. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court’s decision to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused persons and dismissed the appeal.