Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2016 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 1641 - SUPREME COURTMolestation - Reliability of statements of witnesses - acquittal of the accused - offence Under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code - HELD THAT:- The High Court, on proper re-appreciation of the entire evidence, came to the right conclusion that the prosecution was successful in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt and the offence punishable Under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code was made out. There is devastating increase in cases relating to crime against women in the world and our country is also no exception to it. Although the statutory provisions provide strict penal action against such offenders, it is for the courts to ultimately decide whether such incident has occurred or not. The courts should be more cautious in appreciating the evidence and the accused should not be left scot-free merely on flimsy grounds. By the consistent evidence of Ms. Aradhana (PW-13), the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the offence committed by the Appellant Under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. A charge Under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is one which is very easy to make and is very difficult to rebut. It is not that on account of alleged enmity between the Appellant and Shri Duggal and Shri Ojha, he was falsely implicated. It would, however, be unusual in a conservative society that a woman would be used as a pawn to wreak vengeance. It is undoubtedly correct that if intention or knowledge is one of the ingredients of any offence, it has got to be proved like other ingredients for convicting a person. But, it is also equally true that those ingredients being state of mind may not be proved by direct evidence and may have to be inferred from the attending circumstances of a given case. The sequence of events which we have detailed earlier indicates that the Appellant-accused had the requisite culpable intention. The uncorroborated evidence of a hand writing expert is an extremely weak type of evidence and the same should not be relied upon either for the conviction or for acquittal. The courts, should, therefore, be wary to give too much weight to the evidence of handwriting expert. It can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence, it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear, direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence - No particular number of witnesses is required for proving a certain fact. It is the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses that matters. Evidence is weighed and not counted. Evidence of even a single eye witness, truthful, consistent and inspiring confidence is sufficient for maintaining conviction. It is not necessary that all those persons who were present at the spot must be examined by the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused. Having examined all the witnesses, even if other persons present nearby not examined, the evidence of eye-witness cannot be discarded. Ms. Aradhana (PW-13) withstood her testimony from beginning till the end and her deposition was found reliable and corroborative with other prosecution witnesses and both the courts below were right in upholding the conviction of the Appellant-accused Under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction of the Appellant-accused Under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld while modifying the sentence to the period already undergone - appeal disposed off.
|