Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(JHK) 9826
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, CJ, SRI ANANDA SEN, J
MANGAL KUMHAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR – Respondent
Cr.A(DB) 67 / 1995
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; reliance on an unreliable witness undermines conviction.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Conviction based solely on unreliable witness - The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC based on the testimony of P.W.6, which was found to be inconsistent and contradictory. The prosecution failed to produce the most critical witness, the son of the deceased, and the Investigating Officer was not examined, causing prejudice to the defence. (Paras 2, 16, 17)
(B) Evidence - Credibility of witness - The court emphasized that the credibility of P.W.6 was undermined by significant contradictions in her statements and the absence of corroborating evidence from other witnesses. The failure to produce the child witness further weakened the prosecution's case. (Paras 11, 12, 15)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Sanika Kumhar based on the testimony of his wife, who provided contradictory statements regarding the occurrence and the assailants involved. (Paras 3, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to the unreliability of the key witness and the absence of corroborative evidence. (Paras 16, 17)
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly considering the reliability of P.W.6 and the absence of key witnesses. (Paras 8, 16)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution's reliance on an unreliable witness, along with the lack of corroborative evidence, created reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's guilt. (Paras 16)
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside.
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.05.1995 and 17.05.1995 respectively passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, in S.T. No. 690 of 1992, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and thereafter has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court based the conviction of the appellant solely on the basis of the statement of P.W.6. P.W.6, who in fact is not a reliable witness. Her statement as a witness is contradictory to what she has narrated in her fardbeyan. He argues that the most important witness, who is son of the deceased, has not been examined by the prosecution thus giving fatal blow to the prosecution case. Further, all other witnesses are admittedly not eye witnesses to the occurrence. Those witnesses got information about the occurrence only from P.W.6. Since, P.W.6 is not a reliable witness, the evidence of other witnesses, who are hearsay witnesses, are of no relevance for the prosecution. To contradict P.W.6, the appellant states that she being the informant, in the fardbeyan implicated this appellant only to be the accused, who had committed murder of her husband, but while deposing as P.W.6, had narrated that it is not only this appellant, but there were others who actively took part in committing murder of her husband, i.e. the deceased, which is a major contradiction and total deviation, thus demolishes the credibility of this witness. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant further submits that actual place of occurrence has not been proved by the prosecution. He also argues that the alleged murder weapon was also not produced. He lastly argued that the Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined, which prejudiced the case of the appellant as the contradictions in the statement of P.W.7 could not be put forwarded to the Investigating Officer. He prays that this appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted.
3. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyann of Birsi Devi (P.W.6), wife of Late sanika Kumhar. In her Fardbeyan she has stated that on 01.02.1992 at about 12.00 noon, her husband was sitting near his house, when the neighbour Mangal Kumhar, son of Late Soma Kumhar came with Farsa (sharp cutting weapon) and started abusing the deceased. The said Mangal Kumhar had grudge against the deceased and he confronted the deceased because earlier at the instance of the deceased he was branded as a thief in the village. Seeing the attitude of Mangal Kumhar, the deceased Sanika Kumhar fled away. The appellant Mangal Kumhar chased him. The informant also raised alarm and started following them. After running at a distance of 200 yards, near a tamarind tree, Mangal Kumhar (appellant) assaulted the deceased with Farsa. As a result of the assault, the deceased fell down unconscious. The informant raised alarm when villagers assembled there, but Mangal Kumhar fled from the place. The deceased thereafter died.
4. After registering the F.I.R. on the statement of Birsi Devi, the police investigated the occurrence and filed charge sheet against this appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code .
5. The appellant was put on trial and charge was framed on 23.08.1993.
6. The prosecution has examined 10 witnesses.
P.W.1 Budhu Pandit Munda is a witness to the inquest and also witness to the seizure of Farsa. His signature on the inquest report carbon copy was marked as Ext.1 and his signature on the list prepared on seizure of Farsa was also marked as Ext.1/2.
P.W.1 has stated that he had seen the injury on the neck of the deceased. He has stated that he had seen the dead body from a distance and could not gather courage to go there. He was declared hostile. In his cross-examination nothing important could be extracted by the prosecution.
P.W.2 Raswal Mu
