The division judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that when there is a single eye-witness in support of the crime, his statement should be weighed cautiously. If there is any element of doubt the Court should not believe his statement.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the informant (cousin of the deceased) along with Arun Tirkey went to the village and while returning from the village, their cycle got punctured. Thereafter, the accused persons came on a motorcycle and fired shots at Arun Tirkey, and due to fear, the informant hid in the house of Jitu Munda when the assailants fled away, he went to that place and found Arun Tirkey dead. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, the case was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the appellant. The trial court convicted the Appellant. Aggrieved by this, the present criminal appeal is filed.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant contended that the conviction of the appellant is based upon the testimony of the sole witness. It was furthermore contended that the Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case and the credibility of PW7 (sole witness) is in doubt. The Appellant relied upon the judgment titled State of Maharashtra vs. Dinesh.
Contentions of the State:
The state contended that there exists no reason to discard the testimony of PW7 as he was the cousin brother of the deceased and was present at the time of the incident. It was furthermore contended that the ocular evidence matched the medical evidence. It was also contended that the Doctor found gunshot injury on the deceased. Thus, he claims that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and there is no scope of acquittal of the appellant.
Observations of the court:
The Hon’ble court observed that it was deposed by the PW 7 that this appellant along with two persons came in a motorcycle and shot at the deceased. The deceased tried to run away but the accused persons chased and shot him dead. A black color Nokia mobile set fell at the place of occurrence. The recovery of the mobile phone from the place of occurrence has been duly made.
The court furthermore observed that it is well-settled law that when there is a single eye-witness in support of the crime, his statement should be weighed cautiously. If there is any element of doubt the Court should not believe his statement. The instant case completely revolves around the statement made by the PW7 and the statement of PW7 is duly proved.
The court relied upon the judgment titled Amar Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi).
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that the prosecution had fully proved its case against the appellant under 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment of the trial Court calls for no interference.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the court dismissed the criminal appeal.
Case Title: Anil Uraon V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.7 of 2011
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Suraj Verma, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Tarun Kumar, APP
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
