Back
2003 Supreme(Jhk) 1342
High Court Of Jharkhand
Judgename : S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA, LAKSHMANA RAO
FAUDI THAKUR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF JHARKHAND - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 30 Of 2001
Decided On : 12/04/2003
B.M.TRIPATHY, D.K.PRASAD, K.S.Nanda, S.K.DUTTA, S.P.Hausdah
The reliability of single eye-witness testimony and the admissibility of such testimony in criminal cases.
Headnote:
Criminal Law - Conviction under IPC Sections 302/34 and 201/34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Sections 302/34, 201/34 - The judgment discusses the evidence presented by the prosecution, the reliability of the sole eye-witness, and the application of legal principles regarding the admissibility of single eye-witness testimony. The court found the evidence of the sole eye-witness to be reliable and consistent with the FIR and corroborated by independent witnesses, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of the appellants under IPC Sections 302/34 and 201/34 for the murder of the informant's mother. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of the sole eye-witness, the informant (PW-9), who reported the incident about 20 days after it occurred.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the sole eye-witness to be reliable and consistent with the FIR and corroborated by independent witnesses. The delay in lodging the FIR was explained by the informant's fear and lack of support from villagers. The court dismissed the appeal based on the reliability of the sole eye-witness testimony.
Issues: Abnormal delay in lodging FIR, reliability of sole eye-witness testimony
Ratio Decidendi: A conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye-witness if the witness is wholly reliable, consistent, and passes the test of reliability. The delay in lodging the FIR was explained by the informant's fear and lack of support from villagers.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were directed to surrender their bail bond to serve out the sentence imposed on them.
S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
( 1 ) THIS appeal arises from the judgment dated 5th December, 2000 passed by Shree Shyam Kishore Sharma, learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 1995 whereby and whereunder, all the appellants, named above, have been convicted u/s. 302/34 and 201/34 of the I. P. C. , and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offences u/s. 302/34 of the I. P. C. each and three years for the offences u/s. 201/34 of the I. P. C. However, both sentences are to run concurrently. To understand the case, it is desirable to give the relationship between the informant, deceased and appellants. Deceased, Most. Gendiya Devi is the mother of Faudi Thakur (A-1), Ramdhani Thakur (A-2) and informant, Lalo Devi (PW-9 ). Saro Devi (A-4) is the wife of Faudi Thakur (A-1) i. e. daughter-in-law of the deceased. Chameli Devi (A-3) is the mother of Sundari Devi (A-5) and both are next door neighbours of the deceased.
( 2 ) THE case of prosecution is that the informant, Lalo Devi (PW-9), wife of Raj Kumar Thakur and daughter of the deceased Most. Gendiya Devi along with mukhiya, Jageshwar Yadav (PW-1) and some villagers went to police station at about 7. 00 P. M. on 3rd August, 1995 and reported that about 20 days ahead on a Friday, appellant, Faudi Thakur (A-1) came to her house and requested her to go to his house for transplanting paddy. She (PW-9) along with her brother Faudi Thakur went to his house in village Bijaiya at about 3/4 P. M. While she was sleeping in the night after taking dinner, she (informant-PW-9) heard cry of her mother, Most. Gendiya Devi. She rushed to Aangan (Backyard) and found that her elder brother, Faudi Thakur, younger brother, Ramdhani Thakur, sister-in-law Saro Devi, neighbour Chameli Devi and Sundari Devi had caught hold of her mother and her mother was in a pool of blood. The informant took a lantern and when went near her mother, found the back side of her neck already cut, her mother was dead. She (informant) tried to shout but the appellants pointed out blood-stained garasa (a sharp weapon to cut fodder) and threatened that they will also cut her (informant) by garasa. So, she had to keep mum. All the appellants, thereafter, put the dead-body in a gunny bag. Her brothers carried away the dead-body, whereas the ladies, appellant Nos. 3 to 5 washed away the blood. The dead-body was put inside a well and filled up by soil. The accused threatened the informant not to divulge of the matter to anybody. Next day, i. e. Saturday, her elder brother, Faudi Thakur sent her to her in-laws house. Further case of the prosecution is that the informant when narrated the occurrence to her villagers, they advised her to go to police station but she could not go because of panic. A day prior to report, the informant told the matter to Rameshwar Modi, who took her to the village. She also informed to Jageshwar Yadav (PW-1 ). Then the people went near the well and found it filled up with soil. The informant further narrated that her father was an employee of B. C. C. L. , Dhanbad, who died. Her mother (deceased) received money on account of death of father. The amount was deposited in the name of her mother. Her mother (deceased) also got some amount after selling some land which she was keeping with her. Her brothers were suspecting that the mother (deceased) will give the amount to the informant as may donate some lands to her. In this regard, her brothers also assaulted their mother earlier. The wife and daughter of Kartik Thakur (A-3 and A-5) were instigating her brothers and sister-in-law (Bhabhy) in this act. On this information (Exhibit-2) Barhi P. S. Case No. 178/94, dated 3rd August, 1994 was registered u/ss. 302/201/34 of the I. P. C. , Jageshwar Thakur (PW-1), Parmesh-war Thakur (PW-4), Sahdeo Hazam (PW-3) and Sona Choudhary (PW-2) also put their signature in the Fardbeyan. Cognizance was taken and after submission of charge-sheet, the case was c
