The single-judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that in order to draw contradiction under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, it is first necessary to draw the attention of the witness towards his statement made under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C, which is said to be in contradiction with his deposition made before the Court, and get that part of statement under Section 161 to be proved by the I.O. Once there are two such proved statements then plea of contradiction can be taken. Unless attention is drawn and subsequently proved by the I.O., it cannot be termed as a contradiction.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that when Ajay Ram entered the house of Md. Sahabuddin, then, he was caught and assaulted by Md. Sahabuddin and his brother, Md. Saukat Ali. Thereafter, on hulla, about 200-300 people gathered there and all of them started beating up his son and Md. Sahabuddin and Md. Saukat Ali and handed him to Bank More Police Station and from there, he was referred for treatment by the Police. During the course of treatment, Ajay Ram was succumbed to his injuries. Furthermore, the case was registered and after investigation, the charge sheet was filed under Sections 304/ 34 IPC. The trial court convicted the Appellants under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC. Aggrieved by this, the present criminal appeal is filed.
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellant contended that he has been falsely implicated in the present case while making reference to the deposition of PW3 made at para 3 of the cross-examination, wherein it was stated that it was Md. Sahabuddin, who had dissuaded the mob from assaulting the deceased. It was furthermore contended that PW 1 and PW 2 were in detrimental terms with the accused and also the proceedings under Section 107 Cr. P. C. was drawn. Also, there is a lacuna in identification in the dock of the accused persons.
Contentions of the State
The State contended that as per the evidence of the prosecution, it is clear that the appellants have assaulted the deceased resulting in the injuries that resulted in his death.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that only two people have come forward to testify about the horrific incident, despite the strong evidence of homicide being seen by many. The socio reality, in which the criminal justice system is founded, and the limitations it functions within, are reflected in this harsh and depressing perspective. Witnesses, who serve as the "eyes and ears of the court," are not coming forward to support the court in the adjudicatory process; this is a tendency that affects criminal proceedings. All parties involved in the court system ought to consider and pay attention to this issue. Certain causes are readily apparent. People become silent spectators for a number of reasons, such as the possibility of drawing the wrath of those they must speak up to defend justice and the truth against. When a court is evaluating the "matter" in front of it to support or refute a certain fact, these are the considerations that it cannot ignore. This is the reason Indian law does not require the testimony of several witnesses to establish a fact, in contrast to English law.
The court relied upon the judgments titled Darya Singh Vs State of Punjab, and Mohd. Mian v. State of U.P.
The court furthermore observed that if one witness's testimony is deemed to be completely trustworthy, a court may consider it sufficient to make decisions even in the absence of any corroborating evidence. Under such circumstances, recording a conviction won't be prohibited by law. Nonetheless, the court will demand enough corroboration if the evidence is ambiguous or suspicious.
The court noted that to invoke Section 145 of the Evidence Act for a contradiction, one must first call the witness's attention to a statement made under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. that is allegedly in contradiction with his deposition given in front of the court. The witness must then have that portion of the statement under Section 161 proven by the I.O. A claim of contradiction may be made once two of these assertions have been proven. Positive statements made by witnesses often draw attention, rather than omissions unless they are noteworthy. Omissions are not contradictions in terms of explanation to section 162 of the CrPC. Only when an omission seems noteworthy and pertinent in relation to the context in which it happens can it be classified as a contradiction. The court relied upon the judgment titled Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P., and Rajender Singh v. State of Bihar. In the present case, there were repeated questions about omissions, but it has failed to elicit any contradiction within the meaning of Section 145 of the Evidence Act.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that there exists no infirmity in the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the Appeal.
Case title: Md. Sahabuddin V. The State of Jharkhand.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.357 of 2012
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. P. P. N. Roy, Sr. Advocate Mr. B. M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mr. Vishwanath Roy, SPP
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
