The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the mere factum of delay in recording the statements of the witnesses cannot by itself result in the rejection of their testimonies.
Brief Facts
The prosecution case as alleged against the appellants- accused is to the effect that the appellants are dangerous and desperate men who were terrorizing the fish traders in the locality. One day, the appellants came to the fish stall of one Ajoy Dey, (P.W.1) and his elder brother- the deceased herein ransacked their fish stall and looted money and fish as therefrom.
The matter was informed to the police station as well as the local traders’ association. Proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was initiated against him. Thereafter, the appellants again threatened the victim and his brother with dire consequences.
On a fateful day, the appellants accosted the victim and assaulted him on his neck and shoulder with sharp cutting weapons, and shot at the victim. As a result, the victim died. Over this incident, his brother Ajoy Dey, P.W.1 lodged a first information report resulting in registration of a case under Sections 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 27(3) of the Arms Act.
In the course of the investigation, the appellants were arrested, and pursuant to the statement of one of the accused, a revolver with cartridge was recovered. On the statement of another accused, a dagger and a bhojali were also recovered. Post mortem was conducted on the body of the victim and fragments of a bullet were recovered from his body.
A ballistic report was obtained with regard to seized firearms and the bullet fragment recovered from the body of the victim. In conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellants and others. Pursuant to direction passed by the Supreme Court itself, the case was transferred to the Court of Sessions for trial and disposal.
Charges were framed under Sections 302/120B IPC and under section 27(3) of the Arms Act. The framing of the charge was assailed before the Supreme Court and as a result, the same were quashed against the said co-accused. In the course of the trial, the prosecution examined 37 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. Defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication.
Six persons were tried in Sessions Trial in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959. This order was appealed against in the High Court of Calcutta, which affirmed the view taken by the Trial Court and dismissed said appeals.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that it is true that there was some delay in recording the statements of the concerned eye-witnesses but the mere factum of delay by itself cannot result in rejection of their testimonies. The material on record definitely establishes the fear created by the accused.
If the witnesses felt terrorized and frightened and did not come forward for some time, the delay in recording their statements stood adequately explained. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that during the interregnum, the witnesses were carrying on their ordinary pursuits.
Thus, the eye-witness account unfolded through these two prosecution witnesses cannot be discarded. The Court was convinced that their statements were cogent, consistent, and trustworthy.
Held
Affirming the view taken by the Trial Court and the High Court, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals.
Case Details
Case Name: GOUTAM JOARDAR V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Date of Decision: OCTOBER 7, 2021
Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
