The division judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that the informant is a direct eyewitness to the incident and cannot be said to be hearsay for the reason that he had heard the sound of firing. Under Section 60 of the Evidence Act, a person who has seen or heard a fact can be said to be direct evidence.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the Appellant was serving as a Constable in the Indian Reserve Battalion along with the informant and three other constables. The informant heard the sound of firing on which he came out and found that the appellant was missing from the picket He saw him coming out from the room of the deceased, and the informant also saw the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood and 11 empty cartridges were scattered on the ground. The case was registered under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The trial court convicted the Appellant. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal is filed.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant contended that there exists no direct eye witness to the incident, and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence.
Contentions of the State:
The state contended that it is not a case of circumstantial evidence as there exists a direct eye witness.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that the informant is the eyewitness to the incident and cannot be said to be a hearsay witness just because he had heard the sound of firing. Under Section 60 of the Evidence Act, a person who has seen or heard a fact can be said to be direct evidence.
The court furthermore observed that it was deposed by PW 3 that the appellant immediately after the incident stated to him that the deceased had refused leave. Therefore, he killed him. This will be relevant both under Section 6 of the Evidence Act and will also be an extra-judicial confession of the appellant. Also the testimony of the investigating officer is also corroborated by the testimony of the informant (P.W. 3) that the incident took place in the room of the deceased.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that there exists no infirmity in the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Court affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court.
The decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the court dismissed the criminal appeal.
Case Title: Jay Prakash Yadav V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Ananda Sen and Hon’ble Mr Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1351 of 2016
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Soumitra Borai, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Ms. Priya Shrestha, Special P.P.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
