IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Patwari Hembram, S/o Betkea Hembram - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 327 of 1999 (P), Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 458 of 1999 (P)
Decided on : 14-01-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/34 and 201/34 - Conviction and sentence for murder and destruction of evidence - Appellants convicted based on testimonies of witnesses, but lack of corroborative evidence led to doubts about their involvement - The trial court's reliance on uncorroborated witness statements was deemed insufficient for conviction. (Paras 3, 17)
(B) Evidence - The necessity of corroborative evidence in criminal cases - The court emphasized that the prosecution's case must be supported by reliable and corroborative evidence to sustain a conviction. (Paras 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleged that the appellants murdered Marang Baski over a land dispute, with the informant's father missing since 10.01.1998 and later found dead on 14.01.1998. Witnesses claimed to have seen the appellants with the deceased prior to his death. (Paras 4, 6, 8)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence presented was uncorroborated and insufficient to uphold the conviction, leading to the conclusion that the trial court erred in its judgment. (Paras 17, 18)
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of witness testimonies and the necessity for corroborative evidence in establishing guilt. (Paras 17)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lack of corroborative evidence from the prosecution witnesses rendered their testimonies unreliable, thus overturning the conviction. (Paras 17, 18)
Result: Appeals allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgment the same are being disposed of by this common order.
3. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.07.1999 (sentence passed on 15.07.1999) passed by Shri Mungeshwar Sahoo, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 100 of 1998/147 of 1998, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC and have been sentenced to R.I. for life for the conviction u/s 302/34 of the IPC and R.I. for two years for the conviction u/s 201/34 of the IPC.
4. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Hemlal Baski recorded on 16.01.1998, in which, it has been stated that the father of the informant namely, Marang Baski had left for village Babupur and village Dhamni on 10.01.1998 for giving invitation for Bandhana festival. Till 15.01.1998 the father of the informant did not return and on 16.01.1998 the informant and his uncle Sanjhla Baski and the mother of the informant Barki Marandi went to village Dhamni in search of the father of the informant to the house of Etwari Marandi. Etwari Marandi had disclosed that the father of the informant had come to his house on 11.01.1998 from Babupur and had dinner at his place. The uncle of the informant had further disclosed that on 12.01.1998 at 12:00-1:00 P.M. Bablu Marandi, Maha Marandi and Bhagirath Soren had taken Marang Baski to village Hijri to have liquor. Etwari Marandi did not accompany them though they had insisted him to go to Hijri to consume liquor. On 14.01.1998 the uncle of the informant Etwari Marandi came to know that a dead body is lying in Dhankunda hills and when he went he found the dead body to be that of Marang Baski. There was a land dispute with respect to the 2½ bighas of land belonging to the maternal grandmother of the informant which Bablu Marandi wanted to use.
Based on the aforesaid allegations Boarijore (Lalmatia) P.S. Case No. 6/1998 was instituted u/s 302/201/34 of the IPC. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Case No. 100 of 1998. Charge was framed u/s 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC against the accused persons which were read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses in support of its case.
6. P.W.1 (Jisu Murmu) has stated that Bablu and Baburam had taken him to Marang Baski for drinking liquor at Hijri village. They had consumed liquor and had chicken. Along with them were Baburam, Jolkha Besra, Patwari, Bablu and Charan Hembram. He has stated that when all of them were returning back Marang Baski was caught in the middle of Hijri village and after being murdered was thrown in the Dhankunda hills. When he had fled away Marang Baski was with the other persons.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that Police recorded his statement after 5-6 days from the date of occurrence. He did not converse with Charan. Marang Baski had consumed too much of liquor and everyone were in an intoxicated state. Charan had a chemni in his hand. When Charan had told him to leave he out of fear fled away and went to his in-laws place where he disclosed about the incident to Etwari. He had not disclosed about the incident to anyone except Etwari. On the next morning he came to know that Marang Baski has been murdered.
7. P.W.2 (Etwari Marandi) has stated that on the date of occurrence he was in his house when Jisu Murmu, Marang Baski and Bablu Marandi had come to his house to have liquor and after consuming liquor they had gone to Hijri village. On the next day Jisu Murmu had disclosed that Marang Baski has
The necessity for corroborative evidence in criminal cases is paramount; uncorroborated witness testimonies are insufficient for conviction.
Eyewitness testimony must be credible and reliable; an unconscious witness cannot provide valid evidence against an accused.
Point of Law : Offence of Murder - Conviction set aside - Benefit of doubt - Evidence of witnesses do not energise prosecution case and falsity of allegations levelled against appellants lie threadba....
Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory requires corroboration, especially when relationships indicate possible alibi or innocence.
Conviction and sentence cannot be sustained where evidence of material witnesses is fraught with major discrepancies.
The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to unreliable witness testimonies and insufficient circumstantial evidence.
The court upheld a conviction for murder based on eyewitness testimonies, affirming that the familiarity of rural witnesses with the accused overcame visibility doubts.
The necessity of corroborative evidence in cases of murder and the interpretation of common object under Section 149 IPC, emphasizing that mere presence at the scene does not equate to participation ....
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
The conviction for murder based solely on a solitary eyewitness's testimony was overturned due to contradictions and lack of corroboration from other witnesses.
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.