Shivani Gadhavi
Published On: February 05, 2022 at 18:03 IST
The Orissa High Court on February 4, 2022 passed an order of acquittal of six persons who were allegedly found to be associated with Gangster Sk Hyder, in a Murder Case. The Order of acquittal was passed due to absence of substantial evidence.
The Orissa High Court Bench of Chief Justice Dr S Murlidhar and Justice B P Routray was hearing a Petition of six persons who were challenging an order of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubneswar, within which the six were convicted under Section 302 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The six were sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life.
The Case is pertaining to the death of one Chuna Mallik Hanan who was killed by the Gangster Sk Hyder (deceased) and his associates (current Petitioners) in 2005. A First Information Report (FIR) was filed against the above-mentioned persons and subsequently an Arrest was made against them.
Pertaining to this the Prosecution had gathered 48 witnesses against the current Appellants. However, later on all the witnesses including eyewitnesses and seizure witnesses, turned hostile and did not support the Case of the Prosecution. The wife, brothers, sisters and brother-in-law of the victim were also among the witnesses who turned hostile.
The Additional Sessions Judge had convicted the Appellant in the current case by depending on the statements given by four witnesses under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The High Court in light of all the facts and observations, stated that “…when the witness resiles from his earlier statement, procedure is that he should be cross-examined and his statement made earlier as recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. should be confronted to him in extenso.”
The Bench also pointed out that “When the statement of a witness is not tested through cross examination, truthfulness of his statement is not ascertained. It is the test of knowledge of the witness what he testifies.”
The Bench allowed the plea and acquitted the six Appellants while stating that “Thus in absence of substantial evidence and keeping in view the nature of evidences in entirety, the conviction founded on the earlier statement of hostile witnesses recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is bound to fall and liable to set aside.”