It is the quality of evidence and not the quantity that matters: Supreme Court upholds conviction of Kerala man serving life sentence for 1999 murder of ‘anti-liquor movement’ member
Justices Dipankar Datta & Pankaj Mithal [08-07-2024]

Read Order: JOY DEVARAJ v. STATE OF KERALA [SC- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 32 OF 2013]

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, July 9, 2024: The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction a man for the murder of a person attempting to persuade the public to give up drinking alcohol and bring thriving trade in liquor to a grinding hault in Kerala in 1999, observing that there was a definite motive for the accused persons including the appellant to throttle the voice of the victim.

“We hold, without equivocation, that the prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was the person who stabbed the victim during the course of the attack by the accused persons leading to his death,” observed a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Pankaj Mithal.

The bench further held that section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ordains that no particular number of witnesses is required, in any case, to prove a fact. Therefore, it is not the law that a conviction cannot be recorded unless there is oral testimony of at least two witnesses matching with each other.

“It is the quality of evidence and not the quantity that matters. If the evidence of a solitary witness appeals to the court to be wholly reliable, the same can form the foundation for recording a conviction. Viewed thus, the conviction of the appellant does not call for interference based on the sole testimony of PW2, which we have found to be entirely trustworthy,” the Bench observed.

The top court observed that the accused had a motive as the victim Bobby was attempting to halt the thriving liquor trade. It found the testimonies of key eyewitnesses PW1 and PW2 reliable in establishing that Devaraj stabbed Bobby, which was corroborated by medical evidence.

Applying the factors laid down in the Pulicherla Nagaraju case, the Supreme Court concluded that Devaraj's act fulfilled the conditions of murder under section 300 IPC. It noted the use of a deadly weapon, the targeting of a vital organ, the lack of provocation, and the premeditated nature of the attack by the unlawful assembly.

According to the prosecution, Bobby and Bennet Ignatius (PW5) were members of an 'Anti-Liquor Movement' and had an altercation with Sufras @ Rinku (A4), an alleged illicit liquor vendor, on December 24, 1999. Two days later, on December 26 evening, Joy Devaraj, along with 14 other accused persons armed with weapons, attacked Bobby on the street. Devaraj stabbed Bobby in the chest with a dagger, while the other accused hit him with hockey sticks. Bobby succumbed to his injuries after being taken to the hospital.

The Sessions Court had convicted Devaraj under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, and 302 and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The Kerala High Court dismissed his appeal in 2011. In the Supreme Court, Devaraj disputed the prosecution's case and questioned the credibility of witnesses, pointing out inconsistencies in their statements.

However, the apex court noted that minor discrepancies are possible when eyewitnesses testify at length and do not shake the roots of their credibility. The Bench observed that “our faith in the credibility and reliability of the witnesses is unshaken. Although, there are a few inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses but the same are minor and not substantial, as argued, so as to erode the credibility of such witnesses”.

Finding no grounds to interfere with the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed Devaraj's appeal. It vacated his bail and directed him to surrender within three weeks to serve out his life sentence.