A division bench of the Orissa High Court, consisting of J M.S. Sahoo and J. S. Talapatra, in the case of Jhituku Paraja vs. State of Odisha, reiterated the standards of evidence presented as an “eyewitness account” in cases where there are discrepancies in the witnesses’ testimonies. Further, the court assessed the approach of dealing with circumstantial evidence, like the recovery of a blood-stained weapon and the extent to which it can be relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused. The appellant was held to be not guilty since the aforementioned considerations were not held to be ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’.
Facts:
It was alleged that the appellant, Jhituku Paraja, had a quarrel with the deceased where the appellant brought a ‘tangia’ (weapon) from his house and gave blows on the chest and the face of the deceased that led to severe bleeding injury and the deceased died on the spot. Based on the evidence of the “eye-witnesses”, the Koratpur trial court found the appellant guilty and convicted him of an offence punishable under Section 302 and Section 235(2) of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”).
Appellant’s Contentions:
Counsel for the appellant argues that two (P.W. 2 AND 3) out of three eyewitnesses have not stated that they saw the accused attacking the deceased. Thus, their statements cannot be relied on as ocular evidence. Further, the alleged incident took place during the night when there was a hurricane which resulted in a tainted judgment by the eyewitnesses. Moreover, their statements had several discrepancies and inconsistencies. The learned trial court has relied extensively on the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 6 and the evidence of the said witnesses, after being closely scrutinized, is not sufficient to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused is the author of the crime.
Observations of the Court:
Relying on the Supreme Court’s approach in scrutinizing evidence presented as an “eye witness account” in Rammi v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1999(8) SCC 649, the division bench reiterated that when an eyewitness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. However, the courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. Further reliance was placed on Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 1984 SCC (4) 116 which held that if the circumstances proved in the case are consistent either with the innocence of the accused or with his guilt, then the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The judges also relied on the case of Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(1973) 2 SCC 808 where similar views were exhibited that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.
In the present case, the court noticed discrepancies regarding the response of the three witnesses to the fatal occurrence, regarding the three persons becoming eyewitnesses to the occurrence, and the source and location of light enabling them to see the occurrence and held that such discrepancies were serious enough not to treat their evidence as proof beyond all reasonable doubts.
Lastly, relying on the case Balwan Singh vs The State of Chhattisgarh (2019) 7 SCC 781, the court held that recovery of blood-stained “tangia” (weapon) and the clothes alone would not be a sufficient circumstance to hold the accused guilty as there cannot be any such fixed formulae to apply to each case and in the case at hand the testimonies of witnesses have failed to link the accused with the crime.
Decision:
The appeal was allowed and accordingly the judgment of the learned trial court was set aside. The appellant was to be set at liberty unless wanted in connection with any other case.
Citation: JCRLA NO.61 OF 2014
Case: Jhituku Paraja vs. State of Odisha
Date of judgment: 09.09.2022
Coram: Justice M.S. Sahoo and Justice S. Talapatra
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
