Criminal Lawyer: Statement of a witness inimical to the accused has to be taken with pinch of salt; SC.

Supreme Court of India

Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice L Nageswara Rao

The SC holds that any statement by the person who is inimical to the the accused has to be taken with pinch of salt. In the case {Sunita versus State of Haryana} the SC held that the statements of both the witnesses in the present case cannot be relied upon readily in the absence of any corroboration, as both of them were at loggerheads with the accused.

It was further held that the High committed error while relying upon Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 to hold that the appellant was required to explain the circumstances under which the body parts of the deceased came to be recovered from the burning 'Bitora' at village Kailash. It was held that the finding of the High Court is erroneous inasmuch as 'Bitora' was not in possession of the appellant and it was located in an open area. It was further held that the extra judicial confession cannot be relied upon in the present case as prosecution failed to bring on record any special circumstance as to give confidence to the appellant to make extra judicial confession. 

The appeal was allowed by the SC, and the appellant was acquitted as the prosecution failed to prove that it is the appellant and the appellant alone who is guilty of the offence of murder of Sushila.