Vijaya Singh & Anr. vs. State of Uttarakhand 2024 (SC) 928

The Apex Court held that the delay in recording the statements of witnesses (PW-3 and PW-4) will not affected the credibility. That facts of the cases are as follows: 

• The case involved an appeal filed by Vijaya Singh and another appellant against their conviction by the Trial Court and High Court. 
• The appellants were accused of committing a homicide. The case was primarily based on circumstantial evidence. 
• Witnesses PW-3 and PW-4 testified against the appellants. These testimonies were recorded by the Judicial Magistrate on 09.10.2003, several days after the incident. 
• The circumstantial evidence provided no clear refutation by the appellants to break the chain of events leading to the conviction. 
• The Trial Court and High Court had earlier convicted the appellants, which was now being challenged in the Supreme Court. 
• The case revolved around the testimony of PW-3, who had a sense of attachment to the deceased, leading her to give a statement against her own family, which added credibility to her statement. 

• Whether the delay in recording the statements of witnesses (PW-3 and PW-4) affected their credibility? 
• Whether the conviction based on circumstantial evidence was justified? 
• Whether the Trial Court and High Court correctly appreciated the evidence on record? 

• The Supreme Court examined the statements of PW-3 and PW-4, recorded by the Judicial Magistrate on 09.10.2003, a considerable time after the incident.
• The Court noted that, although there was a significant time gap, the witnesses did not claim to have been influenced or tutored during this period.
• The Court observed that PW-3's attachment to the deceased (who was a relative) could explain her statement against her own brother and mother (the accused). 
• The Court found that no chain of events was disproved by the appellants, and the circumstantial evidence presented was solid enough to support the conviction. 
• The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the convictions made by the Trial Court and the High Court. It stated that, in the absence of any illegality, perversity, or improbability in the findings of the lower courts, the consistent views taken by both courts could not be disturbed. 
• In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellants. 

• Credibility of Witness Testimonies: Despite the delay in recording the witness statements, the Court found no evidence to suggest they were unreliable or influenced, and the attachment of PW-3 to the deceased added credibility to her statement.
• Circumstantial Evidence: The Court emphasized that, given the lack of any evidence disproving the circumstantial chain, the conviction was justified.
• Judicial Consistency: The Court reaffirmed that when both lower courts had consistently found the appellants guilty based on sound reasoning, the Supreme Court would not disturb those findings on mere speculation.