Back
2018 Supreme(Manipur) 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Abhilasha Kumari, N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
Vinodkumar Singh – Appellant
Vs.
State of Manipur – Respondent
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 3 of 2016
Decided On : 19-02-2018
For the Appellant : K. Modhusudon
For the Respondent: R.S. Reisang, Sr. G.A. and Shayam Sharma, Addl. G.A.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that minor discrepancies in the evidence should not undermine the strength of the prosecution's case if it is strong and unshaken in other respects.
Headnote:
contradictions - Criminal Law - IPC Section 302, Arms Act Section 27(1) - The judgment and order under challenge, having been passed without proper application of mind or appreciation of evidence, deserves to be quashed and set aside. This Court may, therefore, grant the prayer made by the appellant. The appeal has been strongly opposed by Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Senior GA, assisted by Mr. Shyam Sharma, appearing on behalf of the State Government. The learned Senior GA., has submitted that if the evidence is scrutinized, it will be seen that the so-called contradictions being pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant are not major ones but are minor in nature. The prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Sessions Judge has, after proper appreciation of evidence, rightly arrived at the conclusion regarding the guilt of the appellant/accused. It is submitted that the discrepancy in the number of injuries found on the body of the deceased, as deposed by PW-1, the doctor and PW-2, are due to the fact that the entry and exit wounds made by the bullets have been described separately. In fact, there are no discrepancies at all and even if it is considered to be a discrepancy it is only a minor one which is not sufficient to give the benefit of doubt to the appellant. Learned G.A., has further submitted that the so-called contradictions in the evidence of PW-3 and the other PWs cannot said to be of any significance. He submits that it is a settled position of law that undue importance ought not be attached to minor discrepancies if the case of the prosecution is strong and unshaken in other respects. That there is ample evidence on record to establish the presence of the appellant at the scene of crime and the eye-witness has remained unshaken in his evidence that he saw the appellant shoot the deceased. The evidence of the eye-witness has been corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses. Hence, even if the Court finds minor contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution, the same may be overlooked. That the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge is just and proper and has been passed after proper appreciation of the evidence on record. There is no illegality or infirmity in the said order, therefore, the appeal may be dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-accused, Vinodkumar Singh, has been convicted of the offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC and 27(1) Arms Act for shooting dead a CRPF personnel. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of the eye-witness and other prosecution witnesses, as well as medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The learned Sessions Judge arrived at the conclusion that the charges under Sections 302, IPC and 27(1) Arms Act have been proved against the appellant and proceeded to convict and sentence him vide the impugned judgment and order.
Issues: The main issue was the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, particularly the testimony of the eye-witness and the alleged contradictions in the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that minor discrepancies in the evidence should not be given undue importance if the case of the prosecution is strong and unshaken in other respects. The court also emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence and the need to evaluate the entire material on record.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge were upheld, as the court found no illegality or infirmity in the said order.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused, Vinodkumar Singh, challenging the judgment and order dated 4.8.2016, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Senapati, Manipur, in Sessions Trial Case No. 1 of 2014. The appellant has been convicted of the offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC and 27(1) Arms Act. The appellant has also challenged the order dated 18.8.2016 passed by the Trial Court whereby he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twelve years for the offence under Section 302, IPC, deducting the period of five months which he had already spent in judicial custody. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 27(1) Arms Act, which period would run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11-11-2000 at 8.00 p.m., H.C. No. 800686269, Bhagawan Singh, aged about 39 years, s/o. Gopal Singh of Roksha Nagar Village, Bhojpur-District, who was serving in Bihar of B-Coy, 25 Bn.CRPF, Mao Post, was shot dead by the appellant/accused with his service 9 mm.Carbine B/Butt No. 73, Body No. 10081759, inside the Line Barrack of the Unit.
On 11.11.2000 at 9.00 p.m., Shri M.P. Tyagi, O.C., B-Coy, 25 Bn.CRPF, Mao Post, lodged a written report with the O/C, Mao Police Station to the effect, that on the same day at about 8.00 p.m. the accused had shot dead the deceased Bhagawan Singh. FIR No. 16(11)2000 was lodged with Mao Police Station in this regard u/Ss. 302 and 27 Arms Act. Investigation into the crime commenced and the case was committed to the Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, Senapati, found sufficient prima facie evidence against the accused appellant and framed the charge under Sections 302, IPC and 27, Arms Act. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial commenced.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses and led documentary evidence. The defence did not examine any defence witness. After appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge arrived at the conclusion that the charges under Sections 302, IPC and 27(1) Arms Act have been proved against the appellant and proceeded to convict and sentence him vide the impugned judgment and order.
4. Mr. K. Modhusudon, learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence have been passed without properly appreciating the evidence on record. The learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate that there are major contradictions in the examination in-chief and cross-examination of the sole eye witness, PW-3, which cast doubt upon the manner in which the incident is supposed to have occurred. This gives rise to grave doubt about the case of the prosecution. That there are contradictions in the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses, as well, that ought not to have been acted upon. There is a discrepancy in the evidence of the doctor, PW-1 and PW-2, which may give rise to the possibility that the deceased was beaten by other persons before the incident. That in view of the inter se contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which have not been noticed or dealt with by the Sessions Court, the case of the prosecution cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Under the circumstances, benefit of doubt ought to have been extended to the appellant.
5. That the judgment and order under challenge, having been passed without proper application of mind or appreciation of evidence, deserves to be quashed and set aside. This Court may, therefore, grant the prayer made by the appellant.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Padam Singh v. State of U.P. (2000) 1 SCC 621 : (AIR 2000 SC 361) on the point of contradiction in the deposition of the prosecution w
