Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, JJ.
Munshi Sah S/o Ramjee Sah – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 354 of 1995
Decided On : 09-12-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Murder – Life sentence – Except informant none of prosecution witnesses claim to be an eye witness to incident of taking away son of informant by accused persons – So far as incident of assault upon him is concerned, there is no eye witness – When victim was recovered, he was not alive whereas remaining witnesses have deposed that when victim was found, he was in an injured condition and was in state of unconsciousness – Informant has categorically stated that victim was taken to hospital where he died during treatment – Doctor who treated him has not been examined – No document relating to his treatment has been brought on record – Doctor who conducted post-mortem examination has been examined – Investigating Officer of case has not been examined during trial – Due to non-examination of Investigating Officer, case of defence has seriously been prejudiced – Place of occurrence could not be established due to non-examination of Investigating Officer – Witnesses examined during trial are not consistent on vital parts of incident – There is no consistency in testimony of witnesses either on point of place of occurrence or on time of recovery of victim or condition in which victim was found when witnesses saw him – Doctor who conducted post-mortem examination contradicted informant by saying that there was no external bleeding whereas informant stated in his testimony that his son was profusely bleeding due to injuries caused to him – Discrepancies go to root of matter and shake basic version of witnesses – Trial Court has not appreciated evidence led before it in correct perspective – Impugned judgment of conviction and consequent order of sentence set aside. (Paras 20, 27, 28, 32, 33, 35, 36 and 37)
Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Credibility of testimony of witnesses should create and inspire confidence and for inspiring confidence about credibility of witnesses and evidence, it should be free from contradiction and discrepancies – However, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in deposition of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, errors of memory and due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition – Discrepancies which do not go to root of the matter and shake basic version of witnesses cannot be given undue importance – Where discrepancies create a serious doubt about truthfulness of witnesses while deposing before Court, such evidence cannot be safe to be relied upon – Appeal allowed. Accused acquitted. (Para 36)
JUDGMENT :
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, learned counsel submitted that Ms. Babita Kumari, learned amicus curiae is in some personal difficulty. She submitted that if permitted, she may assist the Court in the matter.
2. On query, she stated that on the request made by the learned amicus curiae, she has gone through the paper book and is ready to assist the Court.
3. In view of the submission made by Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, learned counsel, we permit her to assist the Court in the matter as amicus curiae.
4. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27th September, 1995 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Case No. 65 of 1990 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
5. The prosecution case in short according to the informant Ramdeo Choudhary (PW-8) is that in the night, intervening between 11.12.1988 and 12.12.1988, he was sleeping at his Bathan with his son Ajay Kumar. At mid-night, four persons came there and tied him to the stand of Chowki by rope and forcibly took away his son towards north. He identified all of them as Nokhe Sharma, Dayanand Sharma, Munshi Sah and Magnu Sah @ Mannu Sah. Thereafter, somehow he got himself untied and went to the village and narrated about the occurrence to his co-villagers. Subsequently, he along with Ram Balak Choudhary (PW-2), Uday Kumar (not examined), Sunil Kumar (PW-5) and Baliram Choudhary (PW-1) went in search of his son who was found lying seriously injured north to his Bathan. His head and body were wounded and they resulted in profuse bleeding. He brought him to the hospital at Dalsingsarai where he died during treatment. He has assigned the motive for the occurrence to be a quarrel which had taken place between his son and the accused persons four days ago.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid oral statement of the informant Ramdeo Choudhary recorded by one A. Ram, an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Dalsinghsarai, Bachhawara P.S. Case No. 121 of 1988 was registered under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Nokhe Sharma, Dayanand Sharma, Munshi Sah and Magnu Sah @ Mannu Sah on 12.12.1988 at 5.00 P.M. by the S.H.O. of Bachhawara Police Station, who took up the investigation of the case himself.
7. After the completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet under Section 302/34 on 07.03.1989 against the accused persons named in the FIR.
8. On receipt of the charge-sheet, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai took cognizance of the offence and after complying with the mandatory provisions as provided under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial.
9. Subsequently, the Sessions Judge, Begusarai explained the charge under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty. Hence, the trial commenced.
10. During trial, in all, the prosecution examined eight witnesses. They are: Baliram Choudhary (PW-1), Ram Balak Choudhary (PW-2), Dr. Anand Kumar (PW-3), Kamal Kishore Choudhary (PW-4), Sunil Kumar Choudhary (PW-5), Ramanand Choudhary (PW-6), Prem Kumar Choudhary (PW-7) and Ramdeo Choudhary (PW-8). Apart from the oral testimony of the witnesses, the prosecution proved the post-mortem report of the deceased, which was marked as Exhibit-1, the signature of the informant on the fardbeyan, which was marked as Exhibit-2, the signature of PW-2, Ram Balak Choudhary on the fardbeyan, which was marked as Exhibit-2/1 and the signature of PW-1 Baliram Choudhary, which was marked as Exhibit-2/2.
11. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they pleaded their innocence.
12. T
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of independent witnesses can lead to quashing of conviction.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any significant doubt arising from inconsistencies in evidence must benefit the accused.
Conviction under IPC 302/34 upheld on reliable sole eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence and witnesses, despite minor discrepancies and non-examination of investigating officer/docto....
The court upheld the conviction based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a clear motive and reliable witness testimonies linking the appellant to the murder.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
