The division judge bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Chandra Prakash Singh of the Patna High Court in the case of Shankar Chaudhary vs. the state of Bihar held that the non-examination of a material witness, who could provide essential information or fill gaps in the prosecution's case, may lead the Court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the informant’s elder brother went to attend the nature call and he heard a cry of his brother so he ran towards the road and saw the accused persons were blowing knives repeatedly. Thereafter, he ran towards the village to make an alarm and the accused persons threw the brother of the informant in the water and fled away. Furthermore, he was taken out from the water and while he was being taken to hospital, he died on the way. The charge sheet was filed under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. 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 passed by the trial court is not sustainable in the eyes of the law. It was furthermore contended that the testimony suffers from severe inconsistencies and deserves to be rejected. Furthermore, the oral dying declaration is called into question by a doctor's testimony, which claims the patient would have passed away right away if they had suffered more than one injury.
Contentions of the State:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the judgment passed by the trial court requires no interference. It was furthermore contended that the minor inconsistencies can’t be the reason to reject the evidence as a whole.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble court observed that the prosecution failed to produce any evidence regarding the source of identification in which the deceased identified the appellant and hence, it is difficult to rely upon the oral dying declaration made by the deceased.
It was furthermore observed that the evidence of the eyewitnesses raises reasonable suspicions about their veracity because of inconsistencies, and reasonable doubts.
It was noted that despite the fact that the deceased had many stab wounds, there is no mention of any clothing changes, which presents a significant obstacle to the prosecution's case. Serious questions are raised about the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the information offered by the inquest report, witness testimony, and post-mortem findings taken together.
It was furthermore noted that the prosecution was called into question because the three persons who assisted the informant in removing the deceased from the water may have been the Independent Witnesses to the oral dying declaration.
The court relied upon the judgments titled Sunil Kumar Shambhudayal Gupta and others versus State of Maharashtra, and Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the court allowed the appeal
Case Title: Shankar Chaudhary vs. the State of Bihar
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Prakash Singh
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 325 of 2017
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. Arvind Kumar Pandey and Mr. Abhishek.
Advocates for the State: Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
