LI Network
Published on: October 22, 2023 at 11:40 IST
In a significant legal development, the Patna High Court has acquitted the accused individuals in a murder case, overturning their previous convictions.
The ruling, part of a series of three criminal appeals, centered on the non-examination of crucial witnesses by the prosecution, which led to prejudice against the appellants.
A Division Bench, consisting of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Chandra Prakash Singh, expressed that “in the facts of the present case, we find that the persons named in the FIR who helped the informant to take out the deceased from the pond and who could have listened to the oral dying declaration, if made, and could have been a material independent witness to this case if not withheld. Thereby, adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution in this case. Hence, non-examination of the material witness who has been withheld by the prosecution caused prejudice to the appellants.”
In the case under consideration, the appellants had been found guilty under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, resulting in life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000. Failure to pay the fine would lead to one year of rigorous imprisonment.
According to the prosecution’s account, the incident occurred when the informant’s elder brother went outside to relieve himself. Upon hearing his brother’s cries, the informant arrived at the scene and saw the appellants, armed with knives, attacking his brother under the illumination of a torchlight. The appellants also threatened the informant, forcing him to flee and raise an alarm.
They heartlessly threw the victim into the water and fled. With the help of villagers, the victim was rescued from the water and taken to the hospital, but he succumbed to his injuries on the way. The informant promptly reported the incident to the police, alleging that the appellants had fatally assaulted his brother with a knife.
A case was filed, and the appellants were convicted by the Sessions Judge, resulting in their appeals to the High Court.
A key issue before the Court was the non-examination of material witnesses, namely Rahul Paswan, Ghamri Ansari, and Sanju Singh, who had assisted in rescuing the deceased from the pond and were alleged to have been present during the deceased’s oral testimony.
The High Court emphasized the need to scrutinize the prosecution’s case thoroughly, pointing out that the absence of any mention of changes in the clothing of the deceased despite multiple stab injuries raised questions about the prosecution’s narrative. The inquest report, witness testimonies, and post-mortem findings collectively cast doubt on the veracity and completeness of the evidence.
The Court reaffirmed the prosecution’s responsibility to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. In this instance, inconsistencies regarding the condition of the deceased’s clothing and the absence of cut marks on it created significant uncertainty. Without concrete evidence supporting the presence of cut marks on the clothing, a fundamental gap in the prosecution’s case was evident.
Regarding the three individuals, Rahul Paswan, Ghamri Ansari, and Sanju Singh, who could have been key witnesses to the dying declaration, the Court noted that their non-examination raised questions about the prosecution’s credibility.
However, the Court emphasized that in cases with overwhelming evidence, the absence of additional witnesses might not be significant, and the available evidence must be thoroughly evaluated.
Consequently, the High Court ruled that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts, rendering the previous convictions unsustainable in the eyes of the law. As a result, the appellants were acquitted in this murder case.
Case Title: Shankar Chaudhary vs. The State of Bihar