When Eyewitness Testimony Is Credible, Proving Motive Behind Offense Is Not Necessary: Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court has held that when there is an eyewitness who has seen the commission of murder and their evidence is credible, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the motive behind the offence.“When there is eye witness, who had seen the commission of murder and their evidence is credible, it is not necessary that the prosecution has to prove the motive behind...
The Jharkhand High Court has held that when there is an eyewitness who has seen the commission of murder and their evidence is credible, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the motive behind the offence.
“When there is eye witness, who had seen the commission of murder and their evidence is credible, it is not necessary that the prosecution has to prove the motive behind the offence,” observed the division bench comprising Justices Ananda Sen and Subhash Chand.
According to the case's factual matrix, the informant's brother-in-law, Deepak Horo, was residing in his house. After a meal, Deepak Horo, his friend James Kerketta, Ajit Barla (the appellant), and Fulmani Barla were sleeping in one room.
Fulmani Barla raised the alarm, prompting the informant to rush to the room, where he witnessed the appellant assaulting Deepak Horo and James Kerketta with a Tangi (axe). The informant then locked the appellant in a room and informed the police.
The police arrived, took the injured persons to the hospital, where they were declared dead. An FIR was registered for the offense punishable under Section 302 IPC. The trial court convicted the appellant, leading to the present criminal appeal.
The appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove the motive behind the crime. Additionally, it was contended that Fulmani Barla, who claimed to have seen the incident, cannot be considered a reliable eyewitness since she closed her eyes after seeing the appellant with the weapon. It was further argued that the informant could not be considered an eyewitness either, as the murders had already occurred by the time he arrived.
The state, however, argued that Fulmani Barla was indeed an eyewitness, having seen the occurrence firsthand. Her testimony, they argued, was credible and corroborated by medical evidence. Furthermore, the murder weapon, an axe, was recovered based on the appellant's confessional statement, which was properly recorded by the Investigating Officer.
The Court found no reason to discredit the testimony of the eyewitnesses and noted that the murder weapon, sent for forensic examination, had human blood on it. The Court rejected the appellant's argument that a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC requires proof of motive if credible eyewitnesses are present. The Court noted that the ocular evidence corroborated the medical evidence, supporting the trial court's conviction and sentence.
The appeal was thus dismissed.
Case title: Ajit Barla V. State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 121