Jharkhand High Court Acquits Accused in 1995 Murder Case, Cites Unreliable Sole Eyewitness and Material Contradictions
Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 474 of 1998(P) with Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 477 of 1998(P)
By Rishika Sinha
The Jharkhand High Court allowed criminal appeals and set aside the conviction, holding that where the testimony of the sole eyewitness is not fully 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.
As per the prosecution’s case based on the fardbeyan of P.W.6 (informant), on 22.02.1995 at about 9 PM, several accused persons armed with weapons entered her house, called out her husband with the intent to kill him, and when he fled, they dragged out her father-in-law (deceased) and assaulted him with a bhujali, causing his death. It was further alleged that some of the accused persons committed theft of ornaments and cash from the house.
The trial court convicted the appellants, relying mainly on the testimony of P.W.6 as the sole eyewitness. Before the High Court, the appellants contended that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt; that the sole eyewitness was unreliable due to prior enmity; that there were material contradictions between the fardbeyan and deposition; that other witnesses were hearsay; and that there was an absence of specific overt acts against some appellants. The State supported the conviction, contending that the informant was a reliable eyewitness and her testimony was corroborated by medical evidence and other witnesses.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai examined the entire evidence, including testimonies of prosecution and defence witnesses, place of occurrence, and documentary exhibits. The Court held that though a conviction can be based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness, such testimony must be wholly reliable. Upon analysis, the Court found that the testimony of P.W.6 suffered from material contradictions, particularly regarding whether the deceased was dragged out of the room or came out himself, and regarding the manner and place of occurrence. The Court further found inconsistency between the version of the informant and the description of the place of occurrence given by the Investigating Officer, especially in relation to the position of the house of the deceased and the location where the dead body was found, which cast doubt on whether the informant could have witnessed the occurrence as claimed.
Additionally, the Court noted that the conduct of P.W.5 (husband of the informant) appeared unnatural, as evidence suggested that he returned in a wet condition after the occurrence, which was supported by prosecution as well as defence witnesses. The Court also observed that defence evidence is entitled to equal weight and cannot be discarded merely because it is led by the defence.
In view of these inconsistencies and doubtful circumstances, the Court held that the testimony of the sole eyewitness was not fully trustworthy and reliable, and the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Applying the settled principles relating to the 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
