IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ.
Sanjiv Kumar Singh @ Sanjiv Kumar S/o Shri Satyendra Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 904, 905, 906 of 2023
Decided On : 15-06-2023
Eyewitness Testimony - Criminal Offences - Indian Penal Code - Section 341, 323, 324, 326, 307, 27 - The court accepted the eyewitness accounts of the occurrence and convicted the appellants under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. However, the court set aside the convictions under sections 326 and 307 due to lack of evidence establishing the intention or knowledge to cause grievous hurt or death. The court also found discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence and set aside certain convictions while affirming others.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for various criminal offences under the Indian Penal Code based on eyewitness testimony of the occurrence. The appellants claimed self-defense and animosity as reasons for false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The court accepted the eyewitness testimony as reliable and truthful, leading to convictions under certain sections of the Indian Penal Code. However, the court set aside some convictions due to lack of evidence establishing the intention or knowledge to cause grievous hurt or death.
Issues: Reliability of eyewitness testimony, self-defense claim, animosity as a reason for false implication, discrepancies in prosecution's evidence
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for careful examination of eyewitness testimony and cautioned against mechanical rejection of evidence based on partisanship or interest. The court also highlighted the distinction between minor discrepancies and contradictions in witness testimony, and the importance of assessing the credibility of witnesses.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the criminal appeals, setting aside certain convictions while affirming others, and imposed fines and compensation on the appellants.
ORDER :
1. Barun Singh, Kishore Kumar Singh and Sanjiv Kumar Singh @ Sanjiv Kumar have challenged the judgment dated 4th May 2012 passed in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 2002 by filing separate Criminal Appeals vide Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 904 of 2023, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 905 of 2023 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 906 of 2023.
2. B.S. City P.S. Case No. 90 of 1999 was lodged against the appellants and unknown accused persons on the basis of the fardbeyan of Manoj Kumar which was recorded by the Inspector of Police of B.S. City Police Station on 20th March 1999 at about 02:00 hrs. at Bokaro General Hospital, Bokaro. In his fardbeyan, the informant who was injured in the occurrence has stated that at around 08:45 PM in the evening of 19th March 1999 his neighbours Barun Singh and Kishore Kumar Singh came to his house and he went with them to the nearby Teraha (a tri-junction of roads). He saw that Sanjiv Kumar Singh was waiting there carrying a sword with which Barun Singh attacked him. So he tried to save himself and ran towards his house, when Barun Singh fired a shot which missed him. According to the informant, the reason for the occurrence was that he had advised Barun Singh not to blow whistle in the neighbourhood. After the investigation, a chargesheet was laid against the above-named accused persons and a common charge was framed against them under sections 341, 323 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Barun Singh who is the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 906 of 2023 has been further charged under sections 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 27 of the Arms Act. During the trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses out of whom PW-1 Pravin Kumar and PW-4 Manoj Kumar who are real brothers have been projected as eyewitness.
3. As PW-3, Dr. Bishambhar Das who clinically examined PW-4 on 19th March 1999 at Bokaro General Hospital has observed three incised wounds on the person of PW-4. He had also advised X-ray for different parts of the body of PW-4.
4. The appellants have set up a defence that the informant and others assaulted them and in the scuffle Barun Singh has suffered two injuries on his thumb and in this connection counter case vide B.S. City P.S. Case No. 91 of 1999 was lodged by the brother of Barun Singh. In his written report which was given to the officer-in-charge of B.S. City Police Station on 20th March 1999, he has alleged that at around 09:00 PM in the evening of 19th March 1999 his neighbour and others assaulted his brother Barun Singh. To support the defence that Barun Singh has suffered injuries at the hands of PW-4, Dr. Tripic Prasad Singh was examined as DW-1 who has admitted in the Court that he examined Barun Singh in the morning of 20th March 1999 around 08:30 AM at the Casualty ward of Bokaro General Hospital. As DW1, the doctor has deposed in the Court that he found one incised wound over right thumb with haematoma over right dorsum aspect, one lacerated wound over left thumb, one lacerated wound over left hand's second finger, abrasion over left forearm and another abrasion over right forearm of Barun Singh. He also advised X-ray of the right hand of Barun Singh.
5. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro accepted the testimony of PW-1 and PW-4 and has rendered his opinion that the date, time and place of occurrence are established, and presence of the accused persons at the time and place of occurrence are the admitted facts. PW-1 and PW-4 have been found reliable and truthful and the trial Judge has accepted their testimony as eyewitness-account of the occurrence.
6. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro has convicted the appellants in following manner:
A. Shankar vs. State of Karnataka
Masalti vs. State of U.P. AIR 1965 SC 202
State of Maharashtra vs. Kashirao
The reliability of eyewitness testimony, the distinction between minor discrepancies and contradictions in witness testimony, and the need for careful assessment of witness credibility were central t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellants were convicted under Section 324 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act for causing hurt using firearms during an altercation, base....
(1) Testimony of a witness in a criminal trial cannot be discarded merely because of minor contradictions or omission.(2) Evidentiary value of a medical witness is very crucial to corroborate case of....
The main legal point established in this judgment is that the prosecution must prove the intention to cause death in order to convict the accused under Section 307 IPC. If the intention to cause deat....
The prosecution failed to prove the charges of attempted murder and grievous hurt due to lack of evidence regarding intent and the nature of injuries.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of joint liability under section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, supported by precedents, to attribute criminal responsibility to t....
The court emphasized that when reasonable doubt exists regarding a prosecution's case, it must favor the accused, leading to acquittal.
The intention to cause death and the sufficiency of the acts to cause death in the ordinary course of nature are essential elements of the offense of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the IPC. C....
The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt due to unreliable witness testimonies and procedural errors, resulting in the acquittal of the appellants.
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.