The division judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that there is no bar in law in examining an inimical, interested, or related witness by a party to support his case. A witness may be closely related to the victim or inimical to the accused but on that ground, his testimony cannot be treated as tainted.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the informant alleged that the Appellant came to the house and dragged Madho Singh Munda outside the house. It was furthermore alleged that the accused persons had an eagle eye on his properties which they wanted to grab; the informant has no child. The charge sheet was filed under section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The court convicted the Appellants. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal is filed.
Observations of the Court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the law does not prohibit a party from examining a witness who is inimical, interested, or related witness. Even if a witness is inimical toward the accused or has a close relationship with the victim, his testimony cannot be regarded as tainted because of this. When a crime is committed in the circumstances as described by the witnesses in the present case the family members and co-villagers are the natural and competent witnesses.
The Court relied upon the judgments titled Masalti v. State of U.P, Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab, and Ramashish Rai v. Jagdish Singh.
The court noted that the minor discrepancies in the evidence of a prosecution witness are not given undue emphasis but where the ocular evidence seriously challenges the medical evidence, the prosecution case must be held inconsistent. Therefore, wherever there is a gross contradiction between medical evidence and oral evidence, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved. In the instant case, firstly it was stated that the accused persons arrived at their home without carrying any weapon, and later on, they stated that Nirakar Mahto assaulted Madho Singh with a heavy stone on his head. Furthermore, as per the opinion of the doctor Madho Singh Munda died due to shock and hemorrhage is quite revealing inasmuch as a heavy stone blow would have caused fracture or some injuries of like nature on the head; which, however, is not the finding of the doctor.
Based on these considerations, the court acquitted the Appellant of the charges of murder.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the appeal.
Case Title: Nirakar Mahato V. The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, and Hon’ble Mr Justice Navneet Kumar
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (DB) No.176 of 1993 (R)
Advocate for the Appellant: Ms. Sonam, AC to Amicus
Advocate for the State: Mr. Viswanath Ray, Spl. PP
Read Jugdment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
