Acquittal on Grounds of Unreliable Sole Eyewitness and Material Contradictions
Appeal (D.B) No. 477 of 1998(P)
By Navya Tiwari
The Jharkhand High Court allowed the criminal appeals and set aside the conviction, holding that where the testimony of a sole eyewitness is not wholly trustworthy and material contradictions exist, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeals arose out of a common judgment of conviction dated 28.07.1998 and order of sentence dated 29.07.1998 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 306 of 1995, whereby appellant Nundeo Mehra was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, while other appellants were convicted under Section 148 IPC. During the pendency of the appeal, some appellants died and the appeal abated against them.
Based on the fardbeyan of P.W.6 (informant).
Incident dated 22.02.1995 at about 9 PM.
Allegations:
Several accused persons, armed with weapons, entered the informant’s house.
They called out her husband with the intention to kill him.
When he fled, they dragged out her father-in-law (deceased) and assaulted him with a bhujali, causing his death.
Certain accused persons allegedly committed theft of ornaments and cash from the house.
The trial court convicted the appellants primarily relying on the testimony of P.W.6 as the sole eyewitness.
Appellants argued:
Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Sole eyewitness (P.W.6) was unreliable due to prior enmity.
Material contradictions existed between the fardbeyan and deposition.
Other witnesses were merely hearsay.
No specific overt acts were attributed to some appellants.
State contended:
The informant was a reliable eyewitness.
Her testimony was corroborated by medical evidence and other witnesses.
Court’s Analysis
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai undertook a comprehensive evaluation of:
Oral testimonies (prosecution and defence),
Place of occurrence,
Documentary evidence.
The Court reaffirmed that:
Conviction can be based on a sole eyewitness, but only if the testimony is wholly reliable.
However, upon scrutiny, the Court found significant infirmities:
Material Contradictions in Testimony of P.W.6:
Inconsistency regarding whether the deceased was dragged out of the room or came out himself.
Variations in the manner and place of occurrence.
Inconsistency with Investigating Officer’s Version:
Discrepancies regarding:
Position of the house of the deceased,
Location where the dead body was found.
These inconsistencies cast doubt on whether the informant actually witnessed the occurrence.
Unnatural Conduct of P.W.5 (Husband of Informant):
Evidence indicated that he returned in a wet condition after the occurrence.
This fact was supported by both prosecution and defence witnesses.
The Court found this conduct unnatural and unexplained.
Evidentiary Value of Defence Witnesses:
The Court emphasized that defence evidence carries equal weight.
It cannot be discarded merely because it is adduced by the defence.
Conclusion
In light of the material contradictions and doubtful circumstances, the Court held that:
The testimony of the sole eyewitness was not fully trustworthy.
The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Applying the settled principles of:
Benefit of doubt, and
Presumption of innocence,
the Court held that the appellants were entitled to acquittal. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were set aside, the appeals were allowed, and the appellants were acquitted and discharged from their bail bonds.
