Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court at Surendranagar, Gujarat in Sessions Case
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/remand-of-writ-petition-for-restoration-and-decision-on-merits/
No 27 of 2002, the appellant Narendrasinh Keshubha Zala stood convicted for having committed offences under Section 302, Indian Penal Code read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code as also under Section 25 (1) A and Section 27 (2) of the Arms Act.
The Complaint records the complainant to have stated that at around 11:00PM one person known as Munna Bhai alias Krupal Rajnikant (PW-6) had come on a motorcycle to his residence informing him of his son being critically injured and being taken to MG Hospital in an autorickshaw.
Manbha Bepasaheb Parmar, (PW – 20) which revealed that on 13.1.2002 at around 9:30 PM, while the deceased and Nirav Bipinbhai Patel (PW-3) were sitting on the Nala near the Circuit House, accused Narendra and Shailendra – pillion rider came on a motorcycle and after a brief talk, accused Narendra Zala (Appellant herein) shot dead the deceased with a gun, which was discovered pursuant to his disclosure statement. whether or not the deceased owed money to the Appellant, the testimony of the sole eyewitness (PW-3), worthy of credence, fully matched with the case of Murder as set out by the prosecution.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/presumption-of-genuine-endorsements-in-cheque-case/
In the case of a sole eye witness, the witness has to be reliable, trustworthy, his testimony worthy of credence and the case proven beyond reasonable doubt. It is only when the courts find that the single eyewitness is a wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in toto and no amount of corroboration can cure that defect…”
The same principle has been enunciated in: Amar Singh v.
He was so scared that he ran towards the society where he met his uncle Harshad Veljibhai (PW-9) and his friend Manish Natvarlal Trivedi (PW-8) whom he informed of the incident.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/medical-negligence-and-compensation-a-landmark-decision/
Cross examination part of his testimony reveals this witness to have repeatedly improvised his initial statement, disclosed to the Police.
He left his friend profusely bleeding on the spot but did not seek any help and immediately did not report the incident to the family members of the deceased whose house he visited only the following day at around 8:00 – 9 9:00AM. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the testimonies of the witnesses that it seeks to rely upon are of sterling quality, i.e. State of Punjab, (2022) 9 SCC 402 ; Pramila v. When we examine the testimony of the Complainant (PW-1) we notice him to have deposed that around 11 PM, one person namely Munna Bhai alias Krupal Rajnikant (PW-6) 11 came on a motorcycle and informed that in a critically injured condition, Ram, had been taken to MG Hospital in an autorickshaw.
Further, if the identity of the accused was known both to the father (PW–1) and Nirav (PW-3) then why is that the statement implicating the accused was recorded only at 4:30PM in the evening? , (1976) 1 SCC 172 ; Ishwar Singh v. The settled 13 principles of convicting the accused on circumstantial evidence, enunciated by this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. In its 14 judgment running into 21 pages, the Court has simply reproduced the decisions rendered by this Court and presumptively, without actually appreciating or discussing the testimony of PW-3, held him to have deposed truthfully, fully establishing the prosecution case, against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. We direct the Appellant to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Case Title: NARENDRASINH KESHUBHAI ZALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT (2023 INSC 241)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001179-001179 / 2012
