SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Jhk) 199

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
H.C. MISHRA, B.B. MANGALMURTI, JJ.
Kati Kisku @ Lakhi Ram Kisku & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.537 of 2016
Decided On : 24-03-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. K.N. Roy, Mr. Parijat Sinha, Advocates.
For the State : Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, A.P.P.

Reliability of eyewitness testimony and its impact on the sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases

Headnote:

Conviction - Eyewitness Testimony - Indian Penal Code - Section 302

Fact of the Case:

The appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code based on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the eyewitness testimony to be unreliable and untrustworthy, as the witnesses made material improvements in their statements and their conduct was deemed unnatural. The conviction and sentence of the appellants were set aside, and they were acquitted of the charge.

Issues: Reliability of eyewitness testimony, natural conduct of witnesses, sufficiency of evidence

Ratio Decidendi: Eyewitness testimony must be reliable and trustworthy, and any material improvements or unnatural conduct may render it untrustworthy. Conviction cannot be sustained solely based on unreliable eyewitness testimony.

Final Decision: The impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charge.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State.

2. The appellants are aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction dated 27th April, 2016 and Order of sentence dated 02nd May, 2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Dhanbad, in S.T. No.74 of 2009, whereby, both the appellants have been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, these appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- each, for the said offence.

3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Umesh Hansda, the brother of the deceased Tala Manjhi, recorded on 18.10.2006 at village Chandmari, P.S. Dhansar, District Dhanbad, at 8.30 A.M. in the morning, wherein he has stated that his brother Tala Manjhi was living along with the accused persons, viz., Mangala Manjhi, Kati Kisku and Rajesh Murmu. On 17.10.2006 all of them went out together and at about 07:00 P.M., and at about 8.00 P.M. in the night, he was informed that his brother Tala Manjhi had a quarrel with the accused persons, in course of which, the accused persons assaulted him by stone causing his death, on the PCC road near the house of Sukhlal Manjhi in the village. He has stated that in the night due to the fear they did not inform the police and in the morning when the police arrived at the place of occurrence, the fardbeyan was given by the informant, on the basis of which Dhansar P.S. Case No.673 of 2006, corresponding to G.R. No.3281 of 2006, was instituted for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the three named accused persons, including these appellants, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case.

4. It appears that one of the co-accused was absconding in the case, and after commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against both these accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon both the accuseds' pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined six witnesses in the case, including the I.O. and the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased.

5. P.W.-2 Umesh Hansda is the informant in the case and the brother of the deceased. Though from the F.I.R., it is apparent that he was not the eye-witness to the occurrence, but this witness has tried to become the eye-witness to the occurrence, while deposing in the Court. He has stated that the occurrence had taken place on 17.10.2006 at about 07:00 to 07:30 P.M. in the evening. He was defecating near a pond when he saw the accused persons, including these appellants, assaulting his brother Tala Manjhi by stone. He has stated that the accused Kati Kisku was having the stone and accused Rajesh Murmu and Mangal Hembrom were holding his brother and all the three accused persons assaulted his brother by stone causing his death at the spot. Due to the night and due to fear, he did not inform any one or the police, and in the morning, when the police arrived, he gave his fardbeyan. He has identified his signature on the fardbeyan, which was marked Ext.-1/1. He has also proved his signature on the inquest-report. He has identified both the accused persons in the Court. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that at about 07:00 to 07:30 P.M., while he was defecating, it had become dark and the occurrence had taken place at a distance of about 100 meters from him. After seeing the occurrence, he came to his house and took rest for one hour and thereafter he informed his mother about the occurrence. He has also stated that at the time of occurrence, the accused persons had assaulted his brother for about one hour but he was keeping mum while seeing the occurrence. He has denied the suggestion t











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top