The division judge bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Bela M. Trivedi of the apex court in the case of Dibaker Nunia & Anr V. the state of Punjab held that the reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt but a fair doubt based upon reasons and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. When a reasonable doubt arises in a matter, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that according to the informant, he recognized the man lying on the ground as his younger brother Amar Tanti using the light of an electric bulb. He returned home and learned from his parents that the two accused had assaulted the deceased in the evening hours. After that, the FIR was lodged and the case was made under section 302/34 IPC. The trial court convicted the appellant thereafter , the appeal was preferred in the high court and the testimonies of the witnesses was questioned in the high court.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that both the high court and the session court ignored significant shortcomings in the prosecution case. It was also contended that the testimony on which the appellant’s conviction is based is essentially based on their statements, but their statements not only contain serious contradictions but also inherent improbabilities; and while taking their version at face value, it is against natural and normal conduct for any person to go home after seeing his son in a pool of blood after being assaulted by two people and then take the meal and go to sleep. Further, none of the independent witnesses supported the prosecution’s story.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state duly supported the contested judgment and order and has submitted that, when the totality of circumstances is considered, the statements of the witnesses on whose testimony the appellant was convicted cannot be said to be completely untrustworthy, and the concurrent findings based on the said statements do not call for interference.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court held that it remains trite that in such a criminal case, the prosecution is expected to prove its case and substantiate the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt but a fair doubt based upon reasons and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. When a reasonable doubt arises in a matter, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused. In the present case, the doubts reasonably arising in the matter had been brushed aside by the High Court on the logic that itself remains unacceptable. The approach of the Trial Court in accepting the testimony with the observations that there was no reason for them to implicate anyone except the real culprit, again, remains that of assumptions that are not compatible with the given set of facts and circumstances. It is true that the deceased had been brutally assaulted and had received multiple injuries on vital parts but, on the evidence as adduced by the prosecution, it is difficult to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants alone were the authors of such injuries. In view of the above, we find it to be a fit case for interference in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court. At last, the appeal succeeds and is allowed.
CASE NAME- Dibaker Nunia & Anr V. the state of Punjab
CITATION- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 962 OF 2011
DATED-30.08.22
CORUM- Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
