IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ambuj Nath, JJ.
Jamesh Murmu, S/o Lala Murmu - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 447 of 2018
Decided On : 18-10-2022
Conviction - Indian Penal Code - Sections 302/149, 452, 435, 148, Arms Act - Section 27, C.L.A. Act - Section 17
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for various offenses including murder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of a solitary eyewitness, but inconsistencies and lack of corroboration led the court to set aside the conviction and order the appellant's release.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration in the testimony of the eyewitness.
Issues: Reliability of the eyewitness testimony, sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: Inconsistencies and lack of corroboration in the eyewitness testimony can raise doubt about the reliability of the evidence, leading to the failure of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was directed to be released forthwith.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, learned A.P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 25.1.2018 and order of sentence dated 2.2.2018, passed by Shri Surendra Nath Mishra, learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dumka in S.T. No. 26 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 302/149, 452, 435 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/-for the offence under section 302 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-for the offence under section 435 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-for the offence under section 452 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under section 148 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-for the offence under section 27 of the Arms Act and rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under section 17 of the CLA Act. All the sentences are to run concurrently.
3. The fardbeyan of Chunda Kisku was recorded on 31.1.2011 at 9 A.M. to the effect that on 30.01.2011 at 10 P.M. he was sleeping along with his family members while his elder brother Babulal Kisku was sleeping along with his wife-Chintamuni Marandi in a room in front of where the informant was sleeping. His younger brother Munshi Kisku was in the middle room along with his wife. In another room, his other family members and children were sleeping. It has been alleged that in between 10.30-1045 P.M, he heard the sound of a vehicle, which stopped near his house. After sometime, he heard the footsteps of some persons in the courtyard out of whom one person loudly called out his name and wanted him to come out as the officer in charge had come to talk to him. He recognized the voice as that of James Murmu (appellant). The informant became silent and thereafter he was called out in Santhali and was asked to come out. There were about 7-8 persons and they had rifles, axes, knives and torches with them. It has further been alleged that the miscreants had entered into the precincts and went to the room of Munshi Kisku and Munshi Kisku on their orders hid himself under the cot. When the other family members woke up and started raising a commotion, the miscreants in order to create terror in them fired 3-4 rounds. When the elder brother of the informant as well as his sister in law came out from their room, his sister in law was caught hold of and threatened with a revolver. It has also been alleged that his elder brother Babulal Kisku was being taken outside when the wife of the informant namely Puti Murmu came out to confront them. The informant also followed his wife. He saw James Murmu firing at his wife and the bullet had stuck on her right thigh. Another of the accused stabbed her with a knife on the abdomen, at which, the informant dragged his wife inside a room and locked it from inside. The miscreants had thereafter fired at his brother-Babulal Kisku and slit his throat with a knife. It has been alleged that the miscreants had set ablaze a Gypsy vehicle and a JCB Machine and after raising slogans “Maobadi Jindabad” and after leaving some pamphlets they had fled away. At about 3 A.M., the informant took his wife for treatment to Mohulpahari hospital but on the way he found a vehicle having red light stationed and when some persons started approaching he went back to his house along with his wife. At the time of the incident, he had identified James Murmu in the light of a torch. He has further alleged that a day prior to the incident, he had seen James Murmu along with some unknown persons moving around suspiciously.
The reason for the occurrence is that a few months back, James Murmu had threatened him as to why he was made a suspect in a c
Inconsistencies and lack of corroboration in eyewitness testimony can undermine the prosecution's case and lead to the failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
A conviction for murder requires reliable and corroborated evidence, particularly when based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness; contradictions and lack of corroboration can lead to the reversal o....
The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on consistent eyewitness testimony and corroborative medical evidence, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Unreliable eyewitness testimony cannot support a conviction, leading to the reversal of a murder conviction based on insufficient evidence.
The burden of proving facts especially within the knowledge of any person lies upon that person, as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972.
Direct eyewitness testimony can be sufficient for conviction in murder cases, even in the absence of forensic evidence, provided the testimony is credible and corroborated by other witnesses.
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 ....
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.