“Blind Justice: Unraveling the Fragility of Eyewitness Testimony in Chhote Lal v. Rohtash”

Name of the case:- Chhote Lal v. Rohtash

Case no.:- Criminal Appeal Nos. 2490 of 2014

Court:- The Supreme Court of India

Decided on:- December 14, 2023

Bench:- Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal

Introduction

The Chhote Lal Vs. Rohtash case is a criminal appeal case that was heard by the Supreme Court of India. The case involved a dispute between two groups, which resulted in the killing of Kishan Sarup. The appellant, Chhote Lal, approached the Supreme Court after being aggrieved by the incident. The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused either through circumstantial evidence or the eyewitness’s testimony. The Supreme Court underscored the need for careful scrutiny when examining the testimony of the sole eyewitness who also happens to be the complainant.

Background

The Chhote Lal v. Rohtash case is a criminal appeal case involving a dispute between two rival groups that had been ongoing since 1986. The disagreement stemmed from the access to a public road, which was being blocked by one party. This dispute resulted in the murder of Ram Kishan. In response, the other group killed Kishan Sarup, the victim, in an attempt to seek revenge.

The key events and background of the case include:

• The murder of Ram Kishan, which led to the registration of an FIR on May 1, 2000.
• The trial court convicted six out of ten accused persons for their involvement in the case.
• The high court set aside the conviction ordered by the trial court.
• The appellant, Chhote Lal (the complainant), approached the Supreme Court against the acquittal of the accused persons.

The Supreme Court’s observations in the case were significant, as they emphasized the need for careful scrutiny when examining the testimony of a sole eyewitness who is also the complainant.

Decision of the court

The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused either through circumstantial evidence or the eyewitness’s testimony. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the high court’s decision to give the benefit of doubt to the accused persons and dismissed the appeal.

Potential questions this judgment tend to answer

• What factors should be considered when assessing the credibility of a sole eyewitness who has a personal interest in the case?

• What is the significance of circumstantial evidence in cases where the testimony of a sole eyewitness is questionable?

• Under what circumstances can the testimony of a sole eyewitness be sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

WRITTEN BY: Pankhuri Rastogi

The Supreme Court of India

Unfold Law – Law Firm in Bangalore, Lawyers in Bangalore