The division judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that members of the family are natural witnesses to the incidence and they cannot be said to be interested only for the reason that they happen to be the close family relatives of the victim.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the informant alleged that when he was getting his crops harvested, then the accused persons conjointly assaulted the informant. When his son came to the rescue he was also assaulted. Thereafter, the case was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, and 307 of the IPC against the appellants and others. The charges were framed under Section 307/149 and the appellants were convicted by the learned court below. Therefore, the present appeal is filed.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant contended that all the witnesses are the close relatives of the informant and no independent witness has been examined to support the prosecution case. It was furthermore contended that there exists a material contradiction in the deposition of witnesses regarding the manner of assault.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that time always elapses between the actual incident and the reconstruction of the case in front of the court based on the evidence, leading to peripheral discrepancies in witness testimony. These disparities and inconsistencies are typical and are a result of each person's unique capacity for observation, memory, and replication. When two or more claims about a topic cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense, making them irreconcilable, then an inconsistency may amount to contradiction. Section 145 of the Evidence Act indicates the manner in which contradiction is brought out. Therefore, every inconsistency is not sufficient to jettison the prosecution case, unless and until it goes to the root of the matter so as to erode the evidentiary worth of it.
The court furthermore observed that family members cannot be considered to be interested in the incident just because they are the victim's close relatives; rather, they are natural witnesses to the incident. The court relied upon the judgment titled Rameshwar Versus State of Rajasthan.
The court noted that the defense has failed to point out any valid contradiction which can raise doubt over the veracity of their account. The injured was also examined and the law is well settled in this regard that testimony of injured witnesses deserves a higher degree of credence as their presence is assured at the place of occurrence, and ordinarily, they will not implicate anyone else for the offense, except the real assailants.
The court furthermore noted that in order to bring home the charge under Section 307 of the IPC, an act will amount to an attempt to murder if the act is such that if it was not prevented or intercepted, it would be sufficient to cause the death of the victim. To constitute the offense, no injury needs to be caused to the victim. In the present case, the intensity of the assault on the informant does not suggest that the intention of the appellants was to cause death. No fracture had been caused as a result of the assault.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that no offense under Section. 307 is made out. The court convicted the appellant for the offense under Sections 148 and 326/149 of the IPC.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the court dismissed the criminal appeal.
Case Title: William Dungdung V. State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 205 of 2014 With Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 952 of 2013
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. Subhashis Rasik Soren, Advocate Ms. Shobha Gloria Lakra, Advocate, Mr. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jharkhand_High_Court.jpg
