Conviction Can Be Maintained On Basis Of Evidence Tendered By Police Personnel Who Are Also Victim Of Crime: Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that convictions can be maintained based on the evidence provided by police personnel, even if they are victims of the crime. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava presiding over the case observed, “...the plea of petitioners about non examination of any independent witness cannot be sustained and there is no requirement of law that conviction cannot be...
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that convictions can be maintained based on the evidence provided by police personnel, even if they are victims of the crime.
Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava presiding over the case observed, “...the plea of petitioners about non examination of any independent witness cannot be sustained and there is no requirement of law that conviction cannot be maintained on the basis of evidence of police personnels, who are also victim of the crime.”
In this case, the informant and the SDPO Lohardaga received information that when police personnel attempted to stop two bikers blocking a road on the wrong side, the two bikers used criminal force and violence against the officers. They were also accused of trying to incite the public against the police. Moreover, they did not possess driving licences.
An FIR was registered against them under Sections 341, 353, 323, and 504/34 of the IPC. However, they were discharged from the offences under Sections 341 and 353 IPC, and the trial proceeded solely for the offences under Sections 323 and 504 read with Section 34 IPC.
After the conclusion of the trial, the petitioners were found guilty of offences under Sections 323 and 504 IPC. Their appeal was partly allowed and instead of a substantive sentence of imprisonment, they were released under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
The Petitioner argued that despite the presence of a large number of the public at the time of the incident, no independent witnesses other than police personnel were examined. Additionally, it was argued that no charges were framed under Section 34 of the IPC, thus both petitioners could not be simultaneously convicted.
In contrast, the State contended that the scope of the revision is very limited. It emphasised that the Petitioners were treated with great leniency and were also granted benefits under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
After going through the Judgment of both the courts below, the High Court observed that both the courts below had meticulously examined and appreciated the evidence of ocular witnesses and also the injured P.W. 3 Jai Jai Kumar, who was punched in his stomach and dashed by the petitioners, while regulating the traffic.
“On careful perusal of the impugned Judgments, I do not find any perversity in the Judgments of both the courts below and there is no reason for interference by way of this revision. In my considered view this revision is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed,” the Court concluded while dismissing the revision petition.
Case Title: Simant Saurav @ Simant Saunabh V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 87