What the Supreme Court held about Police evidence not backed by independent witnesses

The Supreme Court has held that there is no legal proposition to say that evidence produced by police officials is unworthy of acceptance without the support of an independent witness..This observation was made in the verdict passed in the case of Kripal Singh v. the State of Rajasthan, by the Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi..“There is no such legal proposition that the evidence of police officials unless supported by independent witness is unworthy of acceptance or the evidence of police officials can be outrightly disregarded.”.A criminal appeal was filed against a decision of the Rajasthan High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). While the trial court convicted the appellant, it acquitted the three co-accused in the case. The acquittal was also upheld by the High Court..Senior Counsel Sushil Kumar Jain argued that the appellant alone cannot be held guilty of murder, and is at best liable under Section 304 IPC, given that the injuries that caused the death of the victim were also inflicted by the three co-accused who stood acquitted..It was also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the conviction is based on the ocular evidence of just one witness, and that the memos recovered have been attested by the police official without any independent witness..Representing the State of Rajasthan, Advocate Ruchi Kohli argued that the testimony of the sole eye-witness is reliable, and that the same stood the test of the cross-examination. As regards support for evidence by independent witnesses, Kohli submitted that the statements made by the witnesses cannot be disregarded as untrustworthy merely because they are police witnesses..After considering the rival submissions, the Court observed,.“The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that recovery has not been proved by any independent witness is of no substance for the reason that in the absence of independent witness to support the recovery in substance cannot be ignored unless proved to the contrary.”.The Bench noted that the testimony of the eye-witness, recovery of the weapon, and statements made by prosecution witnesses, among other things, all corroborate the prosecution case and leave no room for doubt. It thus dismissed the appeal..Read the Judgment: