Conviction Under S.302/307 IPC Set Aside Due to Unexplained FIR Delay and Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony Creating Reasonable Doubt: Jharkhand High Court

Jharkhand High Court Acquits Two Brothers in 1995 Murder Case, Cites 'Reasonable Doubt' Amidst Prosecution Lapses

Ranchi, Jharkhand – The High Court of Jharkhand has acquitted two brothers, Sukhdeo Choudhary and Kailash Choudhary, who were sentenced to life imprisonment for a 1995 murder, citing significant lapses in the prosecution's case that created "reasonable doubt" about their involvement. A division bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava set aside the 1997 conviction, emphasizing that a criminal court cannot deprive individuals of their liberty without a "reasonable level of certainty" of their guilt.

Background of the Case

The case dates back to August 22, 1995, when Kishun Marandi, a prominent local leader, was killed in a bomb attack while returning home on his scooter in Giridih district. The pillion rider, Gulu Baski, was injured in the attack and became the sole eyewitness and informant in the case. Baski claimed that as Marandi slowed the scooter, three individuals, whom he identified as the Choudhary brothers and one unknown person, emerged and threw a bomb.

The motive was alleged to be a long-standing land dispute over a Mahua tree, where the deceased, Marandi, had supported a poor villager against the appellants' father, Kheman Choudhary. Based on Baski's statement, the appellants were charged and subsequently convicted by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, under Sections 302/34 (Murder) and 307/34 (Attempt to Murder) of the Indian Penal Code.

Appellants' Arguments: Pointing to Glaring Discrepancies

The defense counsel challenged the trial court's judgment, highlighting several critical flaws in the investigation and prosecution's narrative:

• Delay in FIR: The fardbeyan (initial statement) was recorded within an hour of the incident at 9:00 PM on August 22, 1995. However, the formal FIR was registered a full 24 hours later, despite the police station being only 2 km away.
• Procedural Lapses: The inquest report and seizure list were prepared the next morning, and the court was "kept in dark as to what happened" in the intervening hours.
• Delayed Judicial Reporting: The FIR was not sent to the concerned Magistrate until August 25, 1995, a three-day delay that the prosecution failed to explain, raising the possibility of "deliberations and consultations."

Court's Analysis: A Case Built on Unreliable Evidence

The High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence and found the prosecution's case to be riddled with inconsistencies, ultimately failing to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony

The Court cast serious doubt on the credibility of the sole eyewitness, Gulu Baski (P.W.7). It noted a significant contradiction between his testimony and the medical evidence.

"it is unbelievable that due to bomb explosion when deceased who was riding the scooter died on the spot as alleged then how, informant who was sitting on the pillion of the scooter, sustained only simple injury. This contradiction in the medical report of informant itself leads to the conclusion that informant is not reliable and trust worthy witness."

The bench also questioned Baski's claim of being hospitalized for ten days for a "simple injury," for which no records were produced.

Material Contradictions and Omissions

The Court found other testimonies equally unreliable. Imoli Kumari (P.W-2), the deceased's daughter, claimed to have told the police that Baski had named the appellants. However, the Investigating Officer (P.W-20) testified that she had made no such statement, marking it as a "material contradiction."

Similarly, the testimony of Sarju Marandi (P.W-9), a chance witness who claimed to have seen the appellants fleeing, was discredited. The Investigating Officer confirmed that Marandi had neither shown him the weapon he allegedly threw at the appellants nor the spot where he identified them.

The Principle of Reasonable Doubt

Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Rang Bahadur Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. , the High Court reiterated a foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence:

"We remind ourselves of the time-tested rule that acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person. Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed on the accused."

The Court concluded that the cumulative effect of the unexplained delays, material contradictions, and the untrustworthy nature of the key witnesses created a significant level of doubt regarding the appellants' complicity.

Final Verdict

Finding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubt, the High Court allowed the appeal. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence from 1997 were set aside, and both Sukhdeo Choudhary and Kailash Choudhary were acquitted of all charges and discharged from their bail bonds.