Delhi High Court has observed that it is settled law that absence of public witness would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution, nonetheless, it has been observed in several cases that joining public witnesses inspires confidence in the case of the prosecution
A bench of Justice Bakhru has passed the order in the case titled as Islam vs State on 10.10.2019.
The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter ‘CrPC’) against a judgment dated 27.08.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 393/397/457/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter ‘IPC’). The appellant impugned an order dated 31.08.2016, whereby he was sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000/- under Section 393 of the IPC read with Section 397 of the IPC.
High Court observed "In addition to the above, there is no explanation as to why persons from the public, who were present during the time of the alleged incident, have not been examined. As noticed above, the PCR officials were stated to be present at the site along with the public and they too have not been examined. There is no eye witness to the incident except the complainant (as was examined) and he too has resiled from his statement stated to have been recorded at the material time. While, it is settled law that absence of public witness would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution, nonetheless, it has been observed in several cases that joining public witnesses inspires confidence in the case of the prosecution. In absence of such witnesses, the court is required to bear a greater scrutiny on the testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses".
High Court held "In this case, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses – who apart from PW-5 are police officials – this Court is unable to accept that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof required for convicting the appellant has clearly not been met in this case. In this view, this Court is unable to concur with the impugned judgment. The same is, accordingly, set aside. Consequently, the order dated 31.08.2016 is also set aside. The appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him".
Read the Order here:
Picture Source :
