The division judge bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Chandra Prakash Singh of the Patna High Court in the case of Saheb Kumar Paswan Vs The State of Bihar held that there should not be any major inconsistency or contradiction in the testimony of an eyewitness and it must be free from blemish and devoid of any ambiguity, uncertainty and loopholes.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the informant has a field in which he had grown potatoes adjacent to the house of Doman Paswan. Furthermore, 5 days prior to the date of the incident, Bimla Devi and Chalitra Paswan threw the waste of her son into the field of the informant. When the informant complained then, the accused assaulted him. Thereafter, in the panchayat they both were asked to maintain peace; however, the accused disobeyed and came to the shop of the informant and shot his father. The case was registered under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act and the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant No. 1.
Contentions of the Appellant
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant contended that the judgment of the trial court suffered from various infirmities therefore, the judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Furthermore, there is no eyewitness. It was also contended that the articles seized were also not sent by the investigating officer for scientific examination. No direct or circumstantial evidence is proven to reasonable doubt.
Contentions of the State
The learned counsel for the state contended that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court’s decision requires no interference. Furthermore, minor infirmities in the testimony of the witnesses can’t be a ground to reject their evidence as a whole.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that there has been a material contradiction between the evidence of PW 4, on the one hand, and PW 5 and PW 6 on the other hand with regard to the source of identification, and the evidence is not sufficient enough to connect the appellant with the case.
It was furthermore observed that the testimony of an eyewitness must be free from imperfections, uncertainty, and loopholes, and it must not contain any significant contradictions or inconsistencies. The court relied upon the judgment titled Sadhu Ram & Another vs The State of Rajasthan
It was noted that any testimony from a witness for the prosecution that they saw the seizure list being prepared is conspicuously absent. Additionally, if there are any seizure witnesses, the prosecution failed to cross-examine them. Furthermore, it is discovered that the allegedly seized by the I.O. blood-stained dirt, pellet, and cap were not sent for a scientific examination.
The chain of events is interrupted by the prosecution's latches, and as a result, the appellant ultimately benefits from the botched investigation, hastily conducted trial, and poorly conducted proceedings.
Based on these considerations, the Hon’ble Court was of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and conviction of the appellant is not sufficient in the eyes of the law.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the Hon’ble Court allowed the present appeal.
Case Title: Saheb Kumar Paswan 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.8 of 1996
Advocates for the Appellants: Mr.Amish Kumar, Amicus Curiae Dr. Prabhakar Thakur, Advocate, Mr. K.C.Jha, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Bipin Kumar, APP
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
