In criminal cases, inconsistencies in witness testimonies create reasonable doubt, warranting the benefit of doubt to the accused, and appellate courts should not interfere unless the lower court's decision is perverse.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. The State of Uttarakhand has approached this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and final order dated 17th July 2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 2010 thereby allowing the appeal filed by the respondent herein and setting aside the judgment and order of the Court of Sessions Judge, Almora (hereinafter referred to as “trial court”) in S.T. No. 15 of 2009 dated 9th August 2010 convicting the respondent herein for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) and sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-.

2. The prosecution’s case is that on the date of the incident PW-1 (Ganeshi Lal) along with PW-2 (Nirmala Verma), who is the daughter of PW-1 and PW-4 (Hira Devi), wife of PW-1, were present in the courtyard. PW-1 heard a cry coming from the courtyard of the victim, which was situated adjacent to the courtyard of PW-1 and he saw the victim being assaulted by the respondent-accused by a sickle. On seeing PW-1, the accused ran away. Initially, the victim was taken to the PHC Takula and thereafter shifted to Base hospital at Almora. The victim succumbed to the injuries. PW-1 lodged a complaint at Police Station Takula, District Someshwar, Almora.

3. On the basis of the oral report of PW-1, a First Information Report (FIR) came to be registered. After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed.

4. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, it was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Almora (hereinafter referred to as “trial court”). The learned trial court, at the conclusion of the trial, convicted the respondent and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life.

5. Being aggrieved thereby, the respondent-accused preferred an appeal before the High Court.

6. The learned Division Bench of the High Court, by the impugned judgment and order allowed the appeal. Hence the present appeal filed by the State.

7. We have heard Shri Kaushalpati Gautam, learned Additional Advocate General (AAG) appearing on behalf of the appellant-State and Smt. S. Janani, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

8. Shri Kaushalpati Gautam, learned AAG appearing for the appellant-State submits that the learned Division bench of the High Court has grossly erred in reversing the well- reasoned judgment and order passed by the trial court. It is submitted that the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4, who are the eye-witnesses is consistent. He further submits that the testimony of PW-1 is also duly corroborated by PW-3 (Shankar Lal Verma). It is also contended that merely because there are inconsistencies in the evidence, the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be discarded.

9. Shri Gautam submitted that all the witnesses are rustic villagers and therefore minor inconsistencies and contradictions would be natural in their evidence. It is submitted that, however, insofar as the role of assault attributed to the present respondent is concerned, all the three eye-witnesses are consistent which is also corroborated by PW-3. The learned AAG therefore submits that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court should be quashed and set aside.

10. Smt. S. Janani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the contrary, submits that all the three eye-witnesses have given totally inconsisten