The single-judge bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Chandra Prakash Singh of the Patna High Court held that the statement of an eyewitness must be free from blemish and devoid of any ambiguity, uncertainty and loopholes.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the informant saw that her gotias were taking water after digging karaha in her land to which she objected and then, the accused persons started abusing her, and due to the fear, she closed the door of the house. Thereafter, the husband of the informant came and told her not to talk with the accused persons as they were not good persons. The husband of the informant went to the accused of the house and the accused persons also went on their roof. Meanwhile, the accused persons were armed with pistols and were throwing brickbats from their roof to her roof and were uttering to kill the husband of the informant to which he got scared and tried to hide in the northwestern corner of the roof. The accused persons fired at him and he fell down and died on the way to the hospital. The charges were framed under Section 302 of I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant contended that the judgment of the trial court deserves to be set aside It was furthermore contended that severe inconsistency is found in the ocular testimony and the findings of the post-mortem report, leading to doubt the manner of occurrence. Also, they failed to prove the place of occurrence to the judicial satisfaction of the court.
Contentions of the State:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the judgment of the trial court requires no interference as the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. It was furthermore contended that the minor inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses do not undermine the entirety of the evidence.
Observations of the court:
The Hon’ble court observed that there exist inconsistencies in the allegations of assault against the appellant and medical evidence available on record. Moreover, no hole was found on the shirt of the deceased. Therefore, the manner of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution is not proved to the judicial satisfaction of the Court.
It was furthermore observed that an eyewitness must give an accurate statement that is free of all uncertainty, ambiguity, and errors. In this instance, it is extremely obvious that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses contains significant discrepancies and contradictions.
It was noted that the place of occurrence narrated by the prosecution is also very doubtful, which casts reasonable doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution case.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the judgment of the conviction by the trial court is not sustainable.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the court allowed the appeal.
Case Title: Vinay Singh vs The state of Bihar
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Prakash
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.18 of 1996
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Advocate Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Dharmendra Kumar, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP
Advocates for the informant: Mr. Subhash Prasad Singh, Advocate Mr. Ghanshyam Sharma, Advocate
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
