Back
2022 Supreme(J&K) 494
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAMMU
Rajnesh Oswal, Rajesh Sekhri, JJ.
Parvez Ahmed & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Jammu & Kashmir – Respondent
CRA No. 33 of 2014 (O&M)
Decided On : 18-11-2022
Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate and Waheed Choudhary, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ravinder Gupta, AAG and Raja Mohit Bucha, Advocate, for the Respondents
Headnote:(A) Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 - Section 302, Section 34 - Conviction of appellants under murder charges reviewed - Reliance on sole eyewitness statement questioned due to material contradictions and improvements made during trial - The court emphasized the importance of corroboration and caution in evaluating testimony of related witnesses. (Paras 26, 30, 39)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were accused of murdering their wife, who allegedly died due to a poisonous substance post-assault. Arguments raised regarding contradictions in witness testimonies and lack of direct evidence of murder. (Paras 3, 6, 39)
Findings of Court:
The trial court's conviction was overturned due to significant doubts regarding the evidence presented, particularly the sole eyewitness testimony, highlighting the need for corroboration in criminal cases. (Paras 39, 40)
Issues: Was the evidence sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the credibility of the sole eyewitness? (Paras 30, 39)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that doubts surrounding the sole eyewitness' credibility, coupled with the prosecution's failure to corroborate the allegations, prevented a conviction. The appellants were entitled to benefit of reasonable doubt. (Paras 30, 39)
Result: Appeals allowed; convictions set aside. (Paras 40, 41)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction for murder based on witness testimony. (Para 1 , 2 , 5) |
| 2. defense arguments highlight contradictions in prosecution evidence. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's skepticism towards sole witness's reliability. (Para 26 , 27 , 30) |
| 4. importance of corroboration in witness testimony. (Para 28 , 38) |
| 5. judgment overturned due to failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
JUDGMENT
Rajnesh Oswal, J. - The appellants have been convicted for commission of offence under section 302, read with section 34 RPC vide judgment dated 10.06.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Poonch (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) and sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 7,000/- vide order dated 10.06.2014 in case titled 'State versus Parvez Ahmed &Ors' arising out of FIR No. 204/2011 of Police Station, Surankot.
2. The appellants have assailed the judgment dated 10.06.2014 on the ground that the learned trial court has wrongly placed reliance upon the statement of PW-Shaheen Akhter as there were material contradictions in her statement and she had made improvements in her statement before the trial court. Further that there were material contradictions in the FIR that was lodged by PW Showkat Hussain and the statement made by Showkat Hussain in the court. By referring to the statements of various witnesses, it has been stated that the learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the evidence.
Contentions:
3. Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel representing the appellants has vehemently argued that the statement of PW Shaheen Akhtar was full of contradictions and she has made improvements in her statement before the trial court and further that her testimony has not been corroborated by the medical evidence but the learned trial court instead of rejecting the same, has accepted the said improved statement of said witness for convicting the appellants. He further argued that the post-mortem report belies the false story projected by the complainant and other witnesses in the court. He also urged that all the witnesses are related and interested witnesses and their evidence is required to be appreciated cautiously, but the learned trial court has not done so and has fallen into grave error of law by relying upon the same for convicting the appellants. In nutshell, the arguments of senior counsel are that learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the evidence and has ignored the material contradictions in prosecution evidence.
4. On the contrary, Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned AAG vehemently argued that the prosecution had successfully proved that the deceased died due to the consumption of poisonous substance and the prosecution had proved all the incriminating circumstances against the appellants and thereafter, onus shifted upon the appellants to explain the circumstances resulting into the death of the deceased, who admittedly was the wife of appellant No. 1 and died in her matrimonial home, which they have failed to discharge.
5. Heard and perused the record.
Prosecution case:
6. As per the prosecution case, Showkat Hussain S/o Mohd Rafiq R/o Lassana, Tehsil Surankote submitted a written application in Urdu on 22.10.2011 at 0910 hours with the Police Station, Surankote against Parvez Ahmed and Farooq Ahmed, both sons of Mohd. Shafi, Shameem Akhtar wife of Farooq Ahmed, Abdul Qayoom son of Mohd Bashir and Shamim Akhtar wife of Abdul Qayoom, residents of Lassana, wherein it was stated that his sister Shamim Akhtar was married with Parvez Ahmed-appellant No. 1 herein 15 years ago. They were having one son of 04 years of age. While his sister was performing her duties as obedient wife, Parvez Ahmed was harassing his sister for the last 2 years as he wanted to solemnize second marriage. He often used to beat her. Today, on 22.10.2011 at 8 AM, the accused persons after hatching a conspiracy, entered into the kitchen of her sister and assaulted her in order to kill her there
