Section 161 CrPC | Witness Statements Recorded During Probe Not Enough To Convict: Rajasthan HC Upholds 34-Yr-Old Murder Acquittal
Upholding a 1991 acquittal order of the sessions court, the Rajasthan High Court said that the statement of the witnesses recorded during investigation under Section 161, CrPC cannot be a basis to convict an accused especially for a serious offence like murder. In doing so the court observed that witness statements under Section 161 are used to merely contradict a witness with their...
Upholding a 1991 acquittal order of the sessions court, the Rajasthan High Court said that the statement of the witnesses recorded during investigation under Section 161, CrPC cannot be a basis to convict an accused especially for a serious offence like murder.
In doing so the court observed that witness statements under Section 161 are used to merely contradict a witness with their previous statement.
The division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit in its order said:
"This we need to keep in mind that the statement of the witnesses recorded in course of the investigation under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be a basis to convict the accused and that too for a serious offence of murder. The statement of a witness under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is used merely to contradict a witness with his previous statement. Therefore, the stand taken by the revisionist (informant in the case) that the prosecution witnesses made cogent statements before the police and that shall be sufficient to record conviction of Abdul Jabbar cannot be accepted".
The court was hearing an appeal filed by the State against an almost 34 year-old-order (dated 14-08-1991) of the sessions court which had acquitted the accused from the charge of murder. The court was also hearing a criminal revision moved by a person stated to be the informant and son of the deceased in the case.
A case was registered in 1988 for the murder of a woman by the accused. It was the case of the prosecution that the accused used to quarrel with the deceased's son in relation to a land's use. On one instance, the accused started beating the deceased's son and when the deceased intervened, the accused started assaulting her with fists that ultimately led to her death.
After perusing the record, the Court highlighted that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was not in consonance with the medical evidence. Rather, it was inconsistent with the medical evidence which was the fundamental defect in the prosecution case.
Reference was made to the Supreme Court case of Omkar Namdeo Jadhao v Second Additional Sessions Judge in which it was held that the Court should not conclude only based on the witness statements recorded under Section 161 of CrPC.
The Court further held that acquittal of an accused by the trial court raised double presumption of innocence in his favour, and reference was made to another Supreme Court case of Kalyan v State of UP in which it was held that normally the trial court's view regarding credibility of the witnesses had to be given proper weight and consideration since trial court was supposed to observe the demeanour and conduct of the witnesses and were in a better position to appreciate their testimony.
In this light, the Court opined that cogent statements made by the prosecution witnesses before the police were not sufficient to record conviction of the accused.
“We find that the trial Judge rightly disbelieved P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-6, P.W.-9 and P.W.-11 on account of serious inconsistencies in their statements and the prosecution story as narrated by Salim in the First Information Report…No evidence was laid during the trial that Hanifa was attacked by Abdul Jabbar with such considerable force that would have broken the ribs and caused rupture of spleen. The suggestion elicited on behalf of the defence that due to assault by fists over the abdominal area the victim may suffer injury in the spleen shall not prove the case of the prosecution that Abdul Jabbar was guilty of intentionally causing death of Hanifa. In our opinion, the prosecution evidence contained more chaff than grains and the Sessions Court rightly acquitted Abdul Jabbar of the charge framed under Sections 302 and 323 of the IPC.”
It was further opined that the maxim “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” which translated to, 'false in one thing, false in everything', was not a sound rule to be applied in conditions of India but when it was found that a witness gave false evidence to certain particulars, it was court's duty to scrutinize his evidence with care and caution.
Accordingly, the State's appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: State of Rajasthan v Abdul Jabbar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 96
