State of Maharashtra v. Dinesh
Background
Two accused were tried for the murder of one Rakesh Dattaji Chavan: Accused No. 1 for the murder itself, and Accused No. 2 (the respondent) for allegedly helping destroy evidence by cutting up and disposing of the corpse. The trial court convicted Accused No. 2, but the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) acquitted both accused on appeal, prompting the State to bring three appeals to the Supreme Court. Two of the three appeals (against Accused No. 1) were earlier dismissed for non-prosecution after the State repeatedly failed to furnish his correct address, leaving only the appeal against Accused No. 2 for decision.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court scrutinised the testimony of the prosecution's sole eyewitness, PW7, who claimed to have seen the accused cutting up the body at night in the dark, yet did not raise an alarm, went on with her life normally, and only gave her statement one and a half months later. The Court held that where a conviction rests on a sole witness, that evidence must be reliable and beyond suspicion, and found PW7's account unconvincing: her husband (allegedly also a witness) was never examined, no test identification parade was held, and the blood group on the weapon was never matched to the deceased. Finding no reason to disturb the High Court's reasoned acquittal, the Court affirmed the High Court's view and dismissed the State's appeal.
Lesson Learnt
A criminal conviction cannot safely rest on a sole eyewitness whose conduct and account raise doubt (e.g., unexplained delay, failure to react naturally to a shocking event, absence of corroborating forensic steps like identification parades or blood-group matching): courts require such testimony to be credible beyond suspicion before acting on it.