Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1688
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Salim Mian - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 303 of 2002
Decided on : 01-09-2025
For the Appellant : Mr. Sahil, Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondent: Mr. Vineet Kr. Vasistha, Spl.P.P.
The reliability of eyewitness testimony is crucial, and substantial contradictions can lead to the reversal of convictions in criminal cases.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 427 - Conviction for murder and related offences - The appellants were convicted and sentenced for murder and assault based largely on the testimony of closely related witnesses, whose reliability was questioned due to contradictions and lack of corroboration - The court found that the trial court failed to accurately scrutinize evidence leading to doubts about the witnesses' presence during the incident, ultimately leading to the conclusion that there was no concrete evidence of guilt. (Paras 20, 19, 18)
(B) Appeal - Acquittal - The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were acquitted due to the lack of substantive evidence against them, and the judgments of conviction were set aside. (Paras 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were accused of murdering the informant's father amidst claims of long-standing enmity and civil litigations, with inconsistencies noted in the testimonies of key witnesses.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's judgment was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted due to lack of corroborative evidence against them.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of the eyewitnesses and whether their testimonies were sufficient to support the convictions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the eyewitnesses’ testimonies contained contradictions and failed to inspire confidence, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Result: Appeal allowed; appellants acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against conviction and sentencing (Para 1 , 4 , 10) |
| 2. challenges to the reliability of witness testimonies (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. arguments for and against witness credibility (Para 7 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. evaluation of evidence and contradictions (Para 18 , 19) |
| 5. conclusion to allow appeal and acquit appellants (Para 20 , 21) |
| 6. post-judgment directives and acknowledgments (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants for setting aside their judgment of conviction dated 13.05.2002 and order of sentence dated 15.03.2002, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 331 of 1990, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 302, 427 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C., R.I. of two years each for the offences under Section 147 /148 of the I.P.C. and R.I. of one year for the offence under Section 427 of the I.P.C. and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. We have heard the argument of Mr. Sahil, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, learned Spl.P.P. for the State.
3. The original appellant no. 5 namely, Rasool Mian, S/o Late Tipan Mian has died during pendency of this appeal and his appeal has been abated vide order dated 11.06.2025.
4. The appeal is heard in respect of four alive appellants namely, Salim Mian, IIyas Mian, Mahboob Mian and Anwar Mian.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned judgment and order of sentence of the appellants has submitted that altogether seven witnesses were examined in this case in order to substantiate the charges leveled against the appellant. Out of them, P.W.-1 has been declared hostile, P.W.-2 is the Doctor, who has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.-5 is a formal witness and not a witness of fact. P.W.-7, whose name is mentioned in the FIR as eye-witness, has been tendered by the prosecution. Similarly, one of the eye witnesses mentioned in the FIR namely, Sahida Khatoon has been examined as a court witness, but stated nothing about the incident expressing her no knowledge. The I.O. has not been examined to prove actual place of occurrence.
6. It is further submitted that the prosecution case rest on the evidence of P.W.-3 Rahman Mian, who is son of the deceased, P.W.-4 Liyakat Mian is the informant of this case and P.W.-6 Abdul Mian is nephew of the deceased. The evidence of these witnesses suffered from material contradictions and discrepancies, which clearly goes to show that they were not present at the place of occurrence and have not seen the actual assault given to the deceased by any of the miscreants. The learned trial court has miserably failed to consider properly that as per the evidence of P.W.-3, 4 & 6 at the time of occurrence, they were inside the room bolted from inside and there was no occasion to go at the place of occurrence. They have stated that after assaulting their father, the appellants surrounded the house of the informant and pelted about 1½ quintals of stones causing damage to the roof tiles. They have also failed to specify any overt act against any of the appellants except general and omnibus allegations due to previous land dispute and pendency of civil litigations between the parties. Their testimony also suffers from inherent improbabilities. The learned trial court has based its judgment of conviction only on the basis of testimony of P.W.-3, 4 & 6, which is evidently not reliable, as such, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and this appeal may be allowed.
7. On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State has submitted that the eye-witnesses are most natural witnesses and close relative of the deceased, their presence on the place of occurrence cannot be doubted and in
