Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN, SUBHASH CHAND, JJ.
Lalit Kujur S/o Late Gauriya Kujur @ Godiya Kujur – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1269 of 2022
Decided On : 02-04-2024
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 389(1) - Appeal against conviction - The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The court found significant doubts regarding the credibility of the sole eyewitness and the absence of corroborating witnesses, leading to the conclusion that false implication could not be ruled out. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside. (Paras 21, 22)
(B) Evidence - Credibility of witnesses - The court emphasized the importance of corroborating evidence, particularly in cases relying on a single eyewitness, and noted the inconsistencies in the testimony of the key witness, raising doubts about the prosecution's case. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of his mother-in-law based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness, who later contradicted herself, leading to doubts about the prosecution's case.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborating evidence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of corroborating witnesses and contradictions in the key witness's testimony created reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's guilt, necessitating the acquittal of the appellant.
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.
JUDGMENT :
ANANDA SEN, J.
I.A. No. 1796 of 2024
1. Today this case has been listed for consideration of I.A. No. 1796/2024, preferred on behalf of the appellant, praying therein for suspending the sentences awarded to the appellant and to release him on bail in terms of Section 389(1) Cr.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant argued at length by referring to evidence of all the witnesses and exhibits, as the Trial Court Record is already available.
3. Learned A.P.P. has also argued at length referring to the evidences and the exhibits and other documents.
4. Considering the nature and length of arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and the fact that the Trial Court Record is already available and this Appeal stood already admitted, this Court requested the parties to finally argue the entire appeal on merits.
5. Counsel for both the parties agreed and argued the entire appeal, challenging the impugned judgment.
6. Thus, when we have already heard the entire appeal on merits, we are not passing any order in this Interlocutory Application and the same is being disposed of as not pressed.
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1269 of 2022
1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.09.2022 and 19.09.2022 respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gumla, whereby the learned trial court held the appellant guilty for the offence committed under Section 302 IPC, and while convicting him under the said Section, sentenced the appellant to undergo R.I. for life and directed to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- only, and in default in payment of fine, he shall undergo R.I. for two years.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the only alleged eye-witness in this case is PW-6, who happens to be the daughter of the deceased. He argues that she claims to be an eye-witness in terms of Para-2 of deposition but if the same is read in continuation of para-15 of the deposition, it would be clear that she has not seen this appellant giving the fatal blow. The deposition of PW-6 is contradictory, which creates a doubt about the prosecution case and the credibility of this witness – PW-6. Once the evidence of PW-6 is demolished, nothing remains in this case as rest of the witnesses are either formal or have turned hostile.
3. Learned counsel further argued that as per the prosecution case, several villagers had apprehended the appellant while he was trying to flee but none of those villagers were produced as a witness, which also is a fatal to the prosecution case.
4. Learned A.P.P. submits that PW-6 is a star witness in this case as she is an eye witness who had seen the appellant committing the offence, which is evident from Para-2 of the deposition. He admits that the other witnesses have either been declared hostile or of formal in nature.
5. The prosecution case is based on the written report of one Ranjeet Kujur, who stated that the deceased was taking rest after taking meal. In the meantime, this appellant entered the house with a stone in his hand, weighing about 10-12 Kg and suddenly threw the same on the head of the deceased. The deceased succumbed to the said injuries. The appellant tried to flee from the place of occurrence but was intercepted by the villagers and was apprehended. It is alleged that this appellant was always quarreling with the informant that is why, to take revenge, he killed his mother-in-law.
6. On the aforesaid information, Gumla P.S. Case No. 48/2019 was instituted under Section 302 IPC. The Police after investigation, filed charge-sheet against this appellant under Section 302 IPC. Cognizance for the alleged offence was taken against the appellant and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. As the appellant pleaded not guilty, he was put on trial.
7. To prove the prosecution case, altogether 07 witnesses were examined by the prosecution whose names are as here under:
| (i) | PW-1 | Dr. Manoj Surin |
| ( | ||
The absence of corroborating evidence and contradictions in witness testimony create reasonable doubt, necessitating acquittal in a murder conviction.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and unreliable eyewitness testimony cannot support a conviction.
The court established that sudden provocation can reduce a murder charge to manslaughter, particularly in domestic disputes.
(1) Murder, attempt to murder and rioting – When genesis and manner of incident itself are doubtful, benefit of doubt should always be in favour of accused.(2) Appreciation of evidence – While apprec....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, and the importance of credible and consistent witness testimonies.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused bears the burden of proof for facts within their knowledge.
The judgment underscores the principle that a conviction cannot be based solely on the testimony of a single witness unless it is wholly reliable and corroborated by other evidence.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder, emphasizing the consistency of eyewitness accounts as reliable evidence supporting the charges under Sections 302 and 9(b) of the Indian Penal Code.
Conviction can be sustained based on the sole testimony of a credible witness, irrespective of other witnesses turning hostile.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
