The division judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that the conviction can be based only on the basis of the testimony of the sole witness but such a witness is to be trustworthy and corroboration from other witnesses is also required. The court overturned the judgment of conviction under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act passed by the trial court solely on the basis of the testimony of the eyewitness.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the case was registered on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant in which it was alleged that she was the maid of deceased S.K.Paul and she went to the house of the S.K. Paul where he told her to cook meat, then, the informant came out from the kitchen with tea. She saw two persons pressing S.K.Paul on the folding cot. At that time, she didn’t understand and was of the view that some friends might be putting colour due to the Holi festival. She told them to have tea and then play Holi, then one of them came and threw the tea and assaulted her with a fist. Thereafter, they shot a bullet in the stomach of the deceased and fled away from the house. Then, she raised hulla, and S.K. Paul was taken to the clinic for treatment, where he died.
The case was registered under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the accused persons. The trial court convicted the accused persons and the present appeal is filed in order to challenge the judgment passed by the learned trial court.
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellant contended that the appellant was convicted solely on the basis of the informant who has been considered to be the eyewitness. However, her testimony can’t be considered trustworthy as she didn’t disclose the name of the appellants or anybody who caused the assault using the bullet. It was also submitted that the testimony of PW 2 can’t be considered trustworthy as the same was not substantiated by the other prosecution witnesses.
Contentions of the State
The State contended that the testimony of the PW 2 was corroborated by the medical evidence. It was also submitted that the judgment passed by the trial court can’t be said to suffer from any impropriety.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that it is well-established law that the judgment of conviction
can be passed on the basis of the testimony of the sole witness but the testimony of said witness should be trustworthy. The court relied upon the judgments titled Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of W.B., Kuriya and another vs. State of Rajasthan, Kalu @ Amit vs. State of Haryana, and Sheelam Ramesh v. State of A.P..
It was furthermore observed that the normal conduct of an individual before whom a bullet has been shot, and if someone else arrives at the scene of the crime and claims to have seen it being committed, they will first reveal the name of the individual who shot them. However, PW 2 didn’t disclose the names of the individuals. Furthermore, PW 2 asserted that the bullet was shot in the abdomen of the deceased in his house but no empty cartridges were found at the place of occurrence and blood trace was there but was not enough for taking a sample for examination. The bullet was also not found in the dead body of the deceased.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that the testimony of PW-2 cannot be said to be fully reliable and the prosecution was not able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the court quashed and set aside the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the appeal.
Case title: Mohan Singh @ Mohan Singh Ghatwar Vs The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 14 of 2017
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
