IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH and KHATIM REZA, JJ.
(23.9.2022)
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1430 of 2018
Md. Naseem @ Chhedi : Appellant
Vs.
State of Bihar : Respondents
Indian Penal Code, 1860–Section 302–Murder–Life sentence–In wake of admitted property dispute between family of appellant and that of informant, apparent contradictions in evidence of prosecution's witnesses cannot be ignored for reaching a conclusion as to whether prosecution could establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts–Witnesses are not truthful and none of them can be considered to be an eyewitness to occurrence–Non-availability of any further scientific evidence to establish that Khanti was used by appellant, creates reasonable doubt over appellant's role in commission of offence–Prosecution has failed to establish charge of commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC against appellant beyond all reasonable doubts–Appellant acquitted. (Paras 17 to 21)
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.:–Heard Mr. N.A. Shamsi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the sole appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. in short).
3. By the judgment and order under appeal dated 13.08.2018/18.08.2018 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2015, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:—
| Conviction under Section | Sentence | ||
| Imprisonment | Fine (Rs.) | In default of fine | |
| 302 of the Indian Penal Code | Imprisonment for life | 20,000/- | S.I. for six months |
4. The informant (P.W.-7) and father of this appellant are full brothers. The wife of the informant is the deceased. The deceased was thus, the appellant’s aunt.
5. The prosecution’s case based on the fardbeyan of the informant (P.W.-7), is that at 12:30 p.m. on 12.01.2014 when he was performing Wazu to offer prayers (Namaz) in front of his doorway, his nephew (the appellant) came there and started abusing the deceased (Majuliya Khatoon) and thereafter he (the appellant) went back to his home. Majuliya Khatoon (the deceased) thereafter lied in a bed in the veranda of the house. In the meanwhile this appellant, armed with a khanti (crowbar) came and gave a khanti blow hitting the head of the deceased (Majuliya Khatoon), when she was sleeping. The deceased sustained head injuries. The informant thereafter raised alarm and rushed towards the deceased. The appellant fled away leaving the khanti used by him behind, after committing the offence. The co-villagers Md. Salim (not examined) and Md. Alauddin (P.W.-4) chased the appellant. The deceased (Majulia Khatoon) was thereafter taken to a nearby Khutauna Hospital in a Tata Magic vehicle. She was referred to Darbhanga Hospital but she was died on her way to the hospital. The dead body of the deceased was thereafter brought back to her house. The informant alleged in his fardbeyan that his brother Md. Gafoor Mansoori and wife of his brother (Nooria Khatoon) had conspired in killing of the deceased. The FIR (Exhibit-1) bears signatures of Md. Oli Hassan (P.W.-3), Md. Alauddin (P.W.-4) and Md. Tahir (P.W.-2).
6. The police, upon completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against this appellant only, though his father Md. Gafoor Mansoori and his mother Nooria Khatoon were named in the FIR, for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, keeping the investigation pending against father and mother of the appellant. The case was subsequently committed to the Court of Sessions. The charges were framed for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC. After closure of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which he denied the accusation of commission of any offence by him.
7. At the trial the prosecution examined nine witnesses in support of its case. Md. Tahir (P.W.-2), who is one of the signatories of the fardbeyan, came to be declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution. He did not at all support the prosecution’s case. The informant has been examined as P.W.-7, the Investigating Officer as P.W.-8 and the Doctor who had conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased as P.W.- 9. The father of the appellant has been examined as a defence witness.
8. The trial court has noted in its impugned judgment that it is an admitted fact even by the defence that Majulia Khatoon, wife of the of the informant died of head injuries on 12.09.2014. The defence took a plea before the trial court that the deceased had sustained injuries in her head as she had accidentally fallen against a hand-pump's rod. The said case of the defence has, howe
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; unreliable eyewitness testimony, especially from near relatives, cannot substantiate a conviction.
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.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, including the place of occurrence and the examination of crucial ....
The conviction was overturned due to insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies, affirming that convictions must be based on reliable and corroborative evidence beyond a reasona....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence led to the appellant's acquittal.
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....
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, and reliance on witness testimony requires corroboration, especially when witnesses are near relatives.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.